OP  THE 

Theological   Seminary,^ 

PRINCETON,    N.J. 

BR    50    .A32    1871 
.     Aids   to   faith 


AIDS  TO  FAITH; 


SERIES    OF    THEOLOGICAL    ESSAYS. 


BY  SEVERAL  WUITERS. 


IIEIXC    A 


'^gqhX  U  "fean.'.  aiiii  '^Ifbite/' 


EDITED    in* 


WILLIAM  ^IIOMSOX,  D.  D., 

LORD      niSIIOP      OF      OLOUCESTEU      AND      nUISTOL. 


NEW  YOPJC  : 
D.    APPLE  TON    AND     COMPANY, 

90,    92    &    94   GRAND    STREET. 
1870. 


PKEFACE 


The  Essays  in  tliis  volume  are  intended  to 
offer  aid  to  those  whose  faith,  may  have  been 
shaken  "by  recent  assaults.  The  writers  do  not 
pretend  to  have  exhausted  subjects  so  vast  and 
so  important,  within  the  compass  of  a  few  pages  ; 
but  they  desire  to  set  forth  their  reasons  for  be- 
lieving the  Bible,  out  of  which  they  teach,  to  be 
the  inspired  "Word  of  God,  and  for  exhorting 
others  still  to  cherish  it  as  the  only  message  of 
salvation  from  God  to  man.  They  hope  that 
these  Essays  may  be,  to  those  whose  attention 
they  can  secure,  incentives  to  further  thought  and 
reading.  They  have  avoided,  rather  than  sought, 
direct  controversy.  They  have  excluded  j)erson- 
ality ;  they  have  not  sj)oken  with  undue  harsh- 
ness of  the  views  they  have  been  forced  to  op- 
pose. 

For  the  choice  of  contributors  and  the  ar- 
rangement of  subjects  the  Editor  is  responsible. 
Most  of  the  writers  gave  their  names  without 
knowing  those  of  their  coadjutors ;  and  not  one 
of  them,  but  the  Editor,  has  seen  all  the  Essays 


^  rilKFACE. 


u])  to  tlio  day  of  publication.  Eacli  has  written 
independently,  Avitliout  any  editorial  interference, 
beyond  a  few  hints  to  prevent  omissions  and  rep- 
etitions, such  as  must  arise  when  several  writers 
work  without  concert. 

On  the  withdrawal  of  one  of  the  contributors, 
Dr.  McCaul  most  kindly  undertook  a  second  pa- 
per, at  a  shoi-t  notice.  No  one  has  a  better  claim 
to  be  heard  on  the  important  subjects  that  have 
been  confided  to  him. 

Professor  Mansel  lent  much  valuable  aid  to 
the  Editor  in  an  unexpected  increase  of  labour. 

This  volume  is  humbly  offered  to  the  Great 
Head  of  the  Church,  as  one  attempt  among  many 
to  keep  men  true  to  Him  in  a  time  of  much  doubt 
and  trial.  Under  His  protection.  His  people 
need  not  be  afraid.  The  old  difficulties  and  ob- 
jections are  revived ;  but  they  will  meet  in  one 
way  or  another  the  old  defeat.  While  the  world 
lasts,  sceptical  books  will  be  written  and  an- 
swered, and  the  books,  perhaps,  and  the  answers 
alike  forgotten.  But  the  Eock  of  Ages  shall 
stand  unchangeable  ;  and  men,  worn  with  a  sense 
of  sin,  shall  still  find  rest  "  under  the  shadow  of 
a  great  rock  in  a  weary  land." 

W.  G.  ct  B. 


CONTEInTTS. 


PACK 

I.-ON  MIRACLES  AS  EVIDENCES  OF  CHRISTIANITY,  .        .      9 

H.  L.  Mansel,  B.  D.,  Waynflete  Professor  of  Moral  and 
Metaphysical  Philosophy,  Oxford;  Tutor  and 
late  Fellow  of  St.  John's  College. 

II.-ON  THE  STUDY  OF  THE  EVIDENCES  OF  CHRISTIAN- 
ITY,     55 

William  Fitzgerald,  D.  D.,  Lord  Bishop  of  Cork, 
Cloyne  and  Ross, 

III.-PROPHECY, 97 

A.  McCaul,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Hebrew  and  Old  Tes- 
tament Exegesis,  King's  College,  London,  and 
Prebendary  of  St.  Paul's. 

IV.-IDEOLOGY  AND  SUBSCRIPTION, 157 

F.  C.  Cook,  M.  A.,  Chaplain  in  Ordinary  to  the  Queen, 
one  of  II.  M.'s  Inspectors  of  Schools,  Prebendary 
of  St.  Paul's,  and  Examining  Chaplain  to  the 
Bishop  of  Lincoln. 

v.— THE  MOSAIC  RECORD  OF  CREATION, 219 

A.  McCaul,  D.  D.,  Professor  of  Hebrew  and  Old  Tes- 
tament Exegesis,  King's  College,  London,  and 
Prebendary  of  St.  Paul's. 


5  CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

VI.— ON   THE   GENUINENESS   AND  AUTHENTICITY  OF  THE 

PENTATEUCH, 273 

George  Ramlinsox,  ;M.  A.,  Camden  Professor  of  An- 
cient History,  Oxford,  and  late  Fellow  and  Tutor 
of  Exeter  College. 

VII.— INSPIRATION, 331 

Edward  Harold  Browne,  B.  D.,  Norrisian  Professor  of 
Divinity,  Cambridge,  and  Canon  Residentiary  of 
Exeter  Cathedral. 


VIII.-TIIE  DEATH  OF  CHRIST, 


William  Thomson,  D.  D.,  Lord  Bishop  of  Gloucester 
and  Bristol. 

IX.— SCRIPTURE,  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATION,  .        .        .        .425 

Charles  Joun  Ellicott,  B.  D.,  Dean  of  Exeter,  au 
i'rofessor  of  Divinity,  King's  College,  London. 


ESSAY     I. 

ON  MIRACLES  AS  EVIDENCES  OF  CHEISTIANITY. 


CONTENTS  OF  ESSAY  I. 


IG. 


Introdittion'— A  Belief  in  the  reality 
of  miracles  is  indispensable  to  (Jhrib- 
tianity. 

Miracles  belons  to  the  moral  nswcll  as 
to  the  sensible  evidences  of  Chris- 
tianity, and  are  i)art  of  its  essential 
doctrines,  not  merely  of  its  external 
accessories. 

Fallacy  of  the  arsniment  from  the  dis- 
belief'in  reported  miracles  of  the  pres- 
ent day;  this  armunont  not  applica- 
ble to  the  miracles  of  Christ. 
Testimony  how  far  able  to  prove  a 
miracle  as  such:  the  proof  of  one 
miracle  removes  the  antecedent  pre- 
sumption against  others  of  the  same 
series. 

Connection  between  the  miraclesof  the 
Old  Testament  and  those  of  the  New. 
Amount  of  testimony  in  support  of  the 
Christian  miracles. 

Fitness  of  the  miracles  as  accompani- 
ments of  man's  redemption. 
Statement  of  the  question  as  related  to 
modern  science. 

Position  of  miracles  with  reference  to 
the  empirical  laws  of  matter. 
Sui)posed  objection  aijainst  miracles 
from  the  uniformity  of  nature — 
Hume's  argument  not  strengthened 
by  the  subsequent  progress  of  science. 
Advance  of  physical  science  tends  to 
increase  our  conviction  of  the  super- 
natural character  of  the  Christian 
miracles. 

Difference,    ns   regards   science,    be- 
tween physical  phenomena  and  works 
done  by  human  agency. 
Final  alternative  necessitated  by  sci- 
ontiflc  progress. 

Kefutation  of  Hume's  argument:  a 
miracle  is  not  properly  a  violation  of 
the  lawH  of  nature,  but  the  introduc- 
tioji  of  a  special  cause. 
Introduction  of  special  causes  is  not 
incredible — Objection  from  the  sup- 
jiosed  necessary  relations  of  natural 
forces  to  each  other. 
E.\cepti«)n  to  this  necessity  in  the 
case  of  the  human  will— Extension 
of  the  argument  from  the  human  will 
to  the  Divine. 


23. 


2G. 


True  conception  of  a  miracle  as  the 
interposition  of  a  superhuman  will — 
Kelr.tion  of  this  superhuman  will  to 
the  conception  of  iiattire,  active  and 
passive,  and  to  that  of  laic. 
Position  of  miracles  with  reference  to 
our  conceptions  of  God's  nature  and 
attributes — Limits  within  which  this 
question  must  bo  discussed— Form 
which  it  assumes  in  relation  to  mira- 
cles. 

Man's  conception  of  God  is  derived 
from  mind,  not  from  matter. 
Conceptions  of  law,  and  order,  and 
causation,  are  borrowed  by  material 
from  mental  science. 
God  is  necessarily  conceived  as  a 
Person,  and  as  related  to  the  per- 
sonal soul  of  man. 

Katiire  conceals  God  :  man  reveals 
God. 

Consequences  of  the  above  principles : 
miracles  must  be  judged,  not  merely 
from  i)hysical,  but  also  from  moral 
and  religious  grounds,  and  their  prob- 
ability estimated  by  that  of  a  revela- 
tion being  given  at  all. 
The  possibility  of  miracles  follows 
from  the  belief  in  a  personal  God. 
Evidential  value  of  miracles. — Erro- 
neous views  on  this  point — Miracles 
how  far  objects,  how  far  evidences 
of  faith. 

Miracles  and  doctrines,  their  relation 
to  each  other — Negative  character  of 
the  doctrinal  criterion:   its  relation 
to    tho    question    whether   miracle* 
liave  been  wrought  at  all. 
Agency  of  evil  spirits  is  practically 
excluded  from  the  question:  practical 
question  is  between  a  Divine  and  a 
human  origin  of  Christianity,  as  re- 
gards the  authority  due  to  cnich. 
Theoretical  authority  of  miracles  as 
'evidences  of  doctrines. 
Pr.ictical  extension  of  this  authority 
— Doctrines  of  natural  religion  may 
practically  be    proved    by  miracles, 
and  have  actually  been  so. 
Principle    on   which    the   evidential 
value  of  miracles  depends. 
Conclusion. 


ON  MIEACLES 

AS    EVIDENCES    OF    CHRISTIANITY. 


1.  What  is  the  exact  position  of  Miracles  among 
the  Evidences  of  Christianity,  is  a  question  which  may 
be  differently  answered  by  different  believers,  without 
prejudice  to  their  common  belief.  It  has  pleased  the 
Divine  Author  of  the  Christian  religion  to  fortify  His 
revelation  with  evidences  of  various  kinds,  appealing 
with  different  degrees  of  force  to  different  minds,  and 
even  to  the  same  mind  at  different  times.  The  grounds 
of  belief  consisting,  not  in  a  single  demonstration,  but 
in  an  accumulation  of  many  probabilities,  there  is  room, 
in  the  evidences  as  in  the  doctrines  of  Christianity,  for 
special  adaptations  of  different  portions  to  different 
minds  ;  nor  can  such  adaptation  be  regarded  as  matter 
of  regret  or  censure,  so  long  as  the  jDcrsonal  preference 
of  certain  portions  does  not  involve  the  rejection  of  the 
remainder. 

The  question,  however,  assumes  a  very  different 
character  when  it  relates,  not  to  the  comparative  im- 
portance of  miracles  as  evidences,  but  to  their  reality 
as  facts,  and  as  facts  of  a  supernatural  kind.  For  if 
this  is  denied,  the  denial  does  not  merely  remove  one 
of  the  supports  of  a  faith  which  may  yet  rest  securely 
on  other  grounds.  On  the  contrary,  the  whole  system 
of  Christian  belief  with  its  evidences,  the  moral  no  less 
than  the  intellectual  influences,  the  precept  and  exam- 
ple for  the  future  no  less  than  the  history  of  the  past — 
all  Christianity,  in  short,  so  far  as  it  has  any  title  to 
that  name,  so  far  as  it  has  any  special  relation  to  the 
person  or  the  teaching  of  Christ,  is  overthrown  at  the 
same  time. 

2.  For  this  question  must  be  considered,  not  mere- 
1* 


IQ  AID3   TO    FAITH.  [Essay  I, 

ly,  as  is  too  often  done,  in  relation  to  a  purely  liypo- 
tlietical  case,  to  a  supposition  of  possible  means  by 
wliicli  the  Christian  religion  might,  had  it  so  pleased 
God,  have  been  introduced  into  the  world  otherwise 
than  it  was ;  but  in  relation  to  the  actual  means  by 
which  it  was  introduced,  to  the  teaching  and  practice 
of  Christ  and  His  Apostles,  as  they  are  portrayed  in 
the  only  records  from  which  we  can  learn  anything 
al)Out  them.  Whether  the  doctrinal  truths  of  Cln-isti- 
anity  could  or  could  not  have  been  propagated  among 
men  by  moral  evidence  alone,  without  any  miraculous 
accompaniments,  it  is  at  least  certain  that  such  was  not 
the  manner  in  which  they  actually  were  propagated, 
according  to  the  narrative  of  Scripture.  If  our  Lord 
not  only  did  works  apparently  surpas>sing  human  power, 
but  likewise  expressly  declared  that  lie  did  those  works 
by  the  power  of  God,  and  in  witness  that  the  Father 
had  sent  him  ; — if  the  Apostles  not  only  wrought  works 
of  a  similar  kind  to  those  of  their  Master,  but  also  ex- 
pressly declared  that  they  did  so  in  His  name,  the  mira- 
cles, as  thus  interpreted  by  those  who  wrought  them, 
become  part  of  the  moral  as  well  as  the  sensible  evi- 
dences of  the  religion  which  they  taught,  and  cannot 
be  denied  without  destroying  both  kinds  of  evidence 
alike.  ''  Tliat  ye  may  know  "that  the  Son  of  Man  hath 
power  upon  earth  to  forgive  sins,  I  say  unto  thee. 
Arise,  and  take  up  thy  couch,  and  go  unto  thine 
house  :  "  "  If  I  with  the  finger  of  God  cast  out  devils, 
no  doubt  the  kingdom  of  God  is  come  upon  you :  " 
"  By  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Kazareth,  whom  ye 
cnicified,  whom  God  raised  from  the  dead,  even  by 
Him  doth  this  man  stand  here  before  you  whole :  "— 
let  us  imagine  for  an  instant  such  words  as  these  to 
liave  been  uttered  by  one  who  was  merely  employing  a 
superior  knowledge  of  natural  laws  to  produce  a  false 
appearance  of  supernatural  power ;  by  an  astronomer, 
for  instance,  who  had  predicted  an  eclipse  to  a  crowd 
of  savages,  or  by  a  chemist,  availing  himself  of  his  {sci- 
ence to  exhil)it  niative  miracles  to  an  ignorant  peo])le 
— and  we  shall  feel  at  once  how  even  the  most  plausi- 


Essay  I.]  ON  MIRACLES.  1 1 

ble  of  the  natural  explanations  of  miraculous  phenom- 
ena deals  the  deathblow  to  the  moral  character  of  the 
teacher,  no  less  than  to  the  sensible  evidence  of  his 
mission. 

But  there  is  a  yet  higher  witness  to  this  intimate 
association  of  the  Christian  Evidences  one  with  another, 
in  that  great  fact  which  forms  at  once  the  central  point 
of  apostolical  preaching  and  the  earnest  of  the  future 
hope  of  all  Christian  men.  If  there  is  one  fact  recorded 
in  Scripture  which  is  entitled,  in  the  fullest  sense  of  the 
word,  to  the  name  of  a  Miracle,  the  Eesukrection  of 
Chkist  is  that  fact.  Here,  at  least,  is  an  instance  in 
which  the  entire  Christian  faith  must  stand  or  fall 
with  our  belief  in  the  supernatural.  "  If  Christ  be 
not  risen,  then  is  our  preaching  vain,  and  your  faith  is 
also  vain."  Here,  at  least,  is  a  test  by  which  all  the 
evidences  of  Christianity  alike,  internal  as  well  as  ex- 
ternal, moral  as  w^ell  as  intellectual,  may  be  tried.  If 
Christ  did  not  truly  die  and  truly  rise  from  the  dead, 
preaching  is  vain  and  faith  is  vain ;  the  Apostles  are 
false  witnesses  of  God  ;  nay,  Christ  Himself,  if  we  may 
dare  to  say  so,  has  witnessed  falsely  of  Himself. 

It  is  necessary  to  state  the  case  in  this  manner,  in 
order  to  point  out  the  real  importance  of  the  interests 
at  stake.  ISTothing  can  be  more  erroneous  than  the 
view  somethnes  taken,  which  represents  the  cpiestion 
of  the  possibility  of  miracles  as  one  which  merely  af- 
fects the  external  accessories  of  Christianity,  leaving 
the  essential  doctrines  untouched.^'  Such  might  pos- 
sibly be  the  case,  were  the  argument  merely  confined 
to  an  inquiry  into  the  evidence  in  behalf  of  some  one 
miracle  as  an  isolated  fact,  without  impeaching  the  pos- 
sibility of  miracles  in  general.  But  such  is  not  the 
question  which  has  been  raised,  or  can  be  raised,  as  re- 
gards the  relation  of  miracles  to  the  alleged  discoveries 

*  See  '  Essays  and  ■Reviews,'  p.  94  (third  edition).  A  similar  view  is  taken 
by  Schleiermacher,  '  Der  Christliche  Glaubc,'  ^^  14,  pp.  10(»,  f^qq.  With  f:ir 
greater  tiuth  it  is  maintained  on  the  other  hand  by  Kothc  ('  Studien  und  Jvi  i- 
tiken,'  1^58,  p.  23)  tliat  "  Jiliracles  and  Prophecies  are  not  adjuncts  appended 
from  without  to  a  revelation  in  itself  iudepcndent  of  them,  but  coustitulivc 
elements  of  the  revelation  itself." 


22  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  I. 

of  modern  science.  If  the  possibility  of  miracles  be 
granted,  the  question,  whether  any  particular  miracle 
did  or  did  not  take  place,  is  a  question  not  of  science, 
but  of  testimony.  The  scientific  question  relates  to  the 
possibility  of  supernatural  occurrences  at  all ;  and  if 
this  be  once  decided  in  the  negative,  Christianity  as 
a  religion  must  necessarily  be  denied  along  with  it. 
Some'moral  precepts  may  indeed  remain,  which  may  or 
may  not  have  been  first  enunciated  by  Christ,  but  which 
in  themselves  have  no  essential  connection  with  one 
person  more  than  with  another ;  but  all  belief  in  Christ 
as  the  great  Example,  as  the  Teacher  sent  from  God, 
as  the  crucified  and  risen  Saviour,  is  gone,  never  to  re- 
turn. The  perfect  sinlessness  of  His  life  and  conduct 
can  no  longer  be  held  before  us  as  our  type  and  pat- 
tern, if  the  works  which  He  professed  to  pei'form  by 
Divine  power  were  either  not  performed  at  all  or  were 
performed  by  human  science  and  skill.  No^  mystery 
impenetrable  by  human  reason,  no  doctrine  incapable 
of  natural  proof,  can  be  believed  on  His  authority  ;  for 
if  He  professed  to  work  miracles,  and  wrought  them 
not,  what  warrant  have  w^e  for  the  trustworthiness  of 
otlier  parts  of  His  teaching  ?  The  benefits  obtained  by 
His  Cross  and  Passion,  the  promises  conveyed  by  His 
Resurrection,  are  no  longer  the  objects  of  Christian 
faith  and  hope  ;  for  if  miracles  arc  impossible.  He  died 
as  other  men  die,  and  was  laid  unto  His  fathers,  and 
saw  corruption.  The  prayers  whch  we  ofter  to  Him 
who  ascended  into  Heaven,  and  there  liveth  to  make 
intercession  for  us,  are  a  delusion  and  a  mockery,  if 
miracles  are  impossible  ;  for  then  is  Christ  not  ascended 
into  Heaven. 

3.  In  point  of  fact,  even  single  miracles  cannot  be 
treated  as  isolated  occurrences,  and  judged  as  we  should 
judge  of  any  similar  act  narrated  at  another  time.  There 
'is  a  latent  fallacy  in  the  appeal  which  is  sometimes  made 
to  the  manner  in  which  well-informed  men  deal  with  al- 
leged marvels  at  the  present  day.'^     The  Christian  mir- 

*  See  •  Essays  and  Reviews,'  p.  lOT.     A  similar  appeal  to  the  practical 
denial  of  miracles  is  made  by  Kant,  'Religion  innerbalb  der  Grenzen  der 


Essay  I.]  ON  MIIIACLES.  23 

acles  can  only  be  judged  in  connection  with  the  scheme 
of  which  they  form  a  part,  and  by  the  light  of  all  the 
collateral  evidence  which  that  scheme  is  able  to  fur- 
nish. The  true  question  is,  not  what  should  we  think 
of,  or  how  should  we  endeavour  to  explain,  a  single  mar- 
vellous occurrence,  or  even  a  series  of  such  occur- 
rences, reported  as  taking  place  at  the  present  time  ? 
but,  what  should  we  think  of  one  who  should  come 
now,  as  Christ  came,  supported  by  all  the  evidences 
which  combined  to  bear  witness  to  Him  ?  If  the  world, 
with  all  its  advance  in  physical  science,  were  morally 
and  religiously  in  the  same  state  as  at  the  time  of 
Christ's  coming  ;  if  we,  like  the  Jews  of  old,  had  been 
taught  by  a  long  series  of  prophecies  to  expect  a  Re- 
deemer in  whom  all  the  families  of  the  earth  should  be 
blessed  ;  if  the  events  of  our  national  history  tended  to 
show  that  the  time  was  come  to  which  those  prophecies 
pointed  as  the  epoch  of  their  fulfilment ;  if  we  were  in 
possession  of  a  religion,  itself  claiming  a  Divine  origin, 
yet  in  all  its  institutions  bearing  witness  to  something 
yet  to  come — a  religion  of  type,  and  ceremony,  and 
sacrifice,  pointing  to  a  further  purpose  and  a  spiritual 
significance  beyond  themselves  ;  if  one  were  to  appear, 
proclaiming  himself  to  be  the  promised  Redeemer, 
appealing  to  our  sacred  writings  as  testif\'ing  of  him- 
self, doing  works  not  only  full  of  power  but  of  good- 
ness, full  of  wonder,  but  also  full  of  love,  and  con- 
firmed by  Scriptures  expressly  declaring  that  such 
works  should  be  done  by  him  that  was  to  come  ;  doing 
them,  not  in  secret,  nor  in  an  appointed  place,  nor  with 
instruments  prepared  for  the  purjiose,  but  openly  and 
without  efiort,  and  upon  occasions  as  they  naturally 
presented  themselves,  in  the  street  and  in  the  market- 
place, in  the  wilderness  and  on  the  sea,  by  the  sick 
man's  bed  and  the  dead  man's  bier  ;  and  expressly  de- 
claring that  he  did  them  by  the  power  of  God  and  in 
proof  that  God  had  sent  him  ; — with  all  these  circum- 
stances combined,  let  any  unprejudiced  man   among 

blossen  Vernunft,'  p.  TOO,  cd.  Rosenkranz :  though  Kant  does  not  go  so  far 
as  to  deny  the  theoretical  possibihty  of  miracles. 


24  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  I. 

ourselves  say  wliicli  would  be  tlie  more  reasonable 
view  to  be  taken  of  such  works  performed  by  sucli  a 
person  ;  wdiether  to  admit  his  own  account  of  them, 
guaranteed  by  all  the  weight  of  his  character,  or  to  re- 
fer them  to  some  natural  cause,  which  will  at  some  fu- 
ture time  receive  its  ex2)lanation  by  the  advance  of  dis- 
covery. Surely  those  who,  even  in  this  enlightened 
age,  chose  to  adopt  the  latter  hypothesis,  rather  than 
admit  the  teacher's  own  testimony  concerning  himself, 
would  be  the  legitimate  successors  of  those  who,  under 
like  circumstances,  declared,  "  He  casteth  out  devils 
through  Beelzebub,  the  chief  of  the  devils."  * 

4.  But  it  is  said  that  testimony  is  unable  to  prove  a 
miracle  as  such.  "  JSTo  testimony,  we  are  told  on  high 
scientific  authority,  can  reach  to  the  supernatural ;  tes- 
timony can  apply  only  to  apparent  sensible  facts  ;  tes- 
timony can  only  prove  an  extraordinary  and  perhaps 
inexplicable  occurrence  or  phenomenon  :  that  it  is  due 
to  supernatural  causes  is  entirely  dependent  on  the 
previous  belief  and  assumptions  of  the  parties."  f  What- 
ever may  be  the  value  of  this  ol)jcction  as  applied  to  a 
hypothetical  case,  in  which  the  objector  may  select 
such  occun-enccs  and  such  testimonies  as  suit  his  pur- 
pose, it  is  singularly  inapplicable  to  the  works  actually 
recorded  as  having  been  done  by  Christ  and  His  Apos- 
tles, and  to  the  testimony  by  which  they  are  actually 
supported.  It  may,  with  certain  exceptions,  be  appli- 
cable to  a  case  in  which  the  assertion  of  a  supernatural 
cause  rests  solely  on  the  testimony  of  the  sjxcfa/or  of 
the  fact ;  but  it  is  not  applicable  to  those  in  which  the 
cause  is  declared  by  the  ■performer.  Let  us  accept,  if 
we  please,  merely  as  a  narrative  of  *'  apparent  sensible 
facts,"  the  history  of  the  cure  of  the  blind  and  dumb 
demoniac,  or  of  the  lame  man  at  the  Beautiful  Gate  ; 
but  wc  cannot  place  the  same  restriction  upon  the 
words  of  our  Lord  and  of  St.  Peter,  which  expressly 

*  For  lliis  arfxumonf  I  nm  partly  indebted  to  Dean  Lyall,  '  Preparation  cf 
Propliccy,'  p.  ir.l,  cd.  1S.J4. 

•f  'Essays  and  Reviews,'  p.  107.  This  objection  is  partly  borrowed  fioiii 
Dean  Lyall,  p.  'jO,  who  however  uses  it  lor  a  very  dillerent  purpose. 


Essay  I.]  ON  MIRACLES.  15 

assign  the  supernatural  cause  :  "  If  I  cast  out  devils  by 
the  Spirit  of  God,  then  the  kingdom  of  God  is  come 
unto  you  :  "  "  By  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  of  JSTazareth 
doth  this  man  stand  here  before  you  whole."  *  We 
have  here,  at  least,  a  testimony  reaching  to  the  super- 
natural ;  and  if  that  testimony  be  admitted  in  these 
cases,  it  may  be  extended  to  the  whole  series  of  won- 
derful works  performed  by  the  same  persons.  For  if  a 
given  cause  can  be  assigned  as  the  true  explanation  of 
any  single  occurrence  of  the  series,. it  becomes  at  once 
the  most  reasonable  and  probable  explanation  of  the 
remainder.  The  antecedent  presumption  against  a  nar- 
rative of  miraculous  occurrences,  whatever  may  be  its 
weight,  is  only  applicable  to  the  narrative  taken  as  a 
whole,  and  to  the  entire  series  of  miracles  which  it  con- 
tains. But  if  a  single  true  miracle  be  admitted  as  es- 
tablished by  sufficient  evidence,  the  entire  history  to 
which  it  belongs  is  at  once  removed  from  the  ordinary 
calculations  of  more  or  less  probability.  One  miracle 
is  enough  to  show  that  the  series  of  events  with  which 
it  is  connected  is  one  which  the  Almighty  has  seen  fit 
to  mark  by  exceptions  to  the  ordinary  course  of  His 
Providence  ;  and,  if  this  be  once  granted,  we  have  no 
d  2^^'^ori  grounds  on  which  vre  can  determine  how 
many  of  such  exceptions  are  to  be  expected.  If  a  sin- 
gle miracle  recorded  in  the  Gospels  be  once  admitted, 
the  remainder  cease  to  have  any  special  antecedent  im- 
probability, and  may  be  established  by  the  same  evi- 
dence which  is  sufficient  for  ordinary  events.  For  the 
improbability,  Avhatcver  it  may  be,  reaches  no  further 
than  to  show  that  it  is  unlikely  that  God  should  work 
miracles  at  all ;  not  that  it  is  unlikely  that  He  should 
work  more  than  a  certain  number. 

5.  Hitherto  w^e  have  spoken  only  of  the  miracles  of 
Christ  and  His  Apostles.  But  the  miracles  of  the  Old 
Testament  also  can  only  be  rightly  estimated  through 
their  connection  with  tliose  of  the  New.  The  promise 
of  man's  redemption  was  coeval  with  his  fall ;  and  the 

*  St.  Matt.  xii.  28  ;  Acts  iv.  10. 


|g  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essat  I. 

"U'hole  intervening  history,  as  it  is  told  in  Scripture,  is  a 
narrative  of  the  steps  by  wliicli  the  "svorld  was  pre- 
pared for  tlie  fulfilment  of  that  promise.  The  miracles 
of  the  Old  Testament,  as  has  been  observed,  are  chiefly 
grouped  romid  two  great  epochs  in  the  history  of  the 
theocratic  kingdom — that  of  its  foundation  under  Moses 
and  Joshua,  and  that  of  its  restoration  by  Elijah  and 
Elisha."  They  thus  have  a  direct  relation  to  the  es- 
tablishment and  preservation  of  the  Mosaic  covenant, 
itself  a  supernatural  system,  provided  with  supernat- 
ural institutions,  and  preparing  the  way  for  the  final 
consummation  of  God's  supernatural  providence  in  the 
advent  of  His  Son.f  Not  merely  the  occasional  mira- 
cles of  Jewish  history,  but  some  of  the  established  and 
prominent  features  of  their  religion  down  to  the  time 
of  the  Captivity — the  gift  of  Prophecy,  the  Shechinah, 
the  Urim  and  Tliummim,  the  Sabbatical  year,  and 
others — manifest  themselves  as  the  su2:)ernatural  parts 
of  a  supernatural  system,  and  that  system  one  having 
a  definite  purpose  and  pointing  to  a  definite  end.:]: 
They  were  the  adjuncts  of  the  Law ;  and  "  the  Law 
was  our  shoolmaster  to  bring  us  unto  Christ." 

G.  The  real  question  at  issue  between  the  believer 
and  the  unbeliever  in  the  Scripture  miracles  is  not 
whether  they  are  established  by  suflicient  testimony, 
but  v\dicther  they  can  be  established  by  any  testimony 
at  all.  If  it  be  once  granted  that  testimony  is  admissi- 
])lc  in  the  case,  it  is  scarcely  possible  to  conceive  a 
stronger  testimony  than  that  which  the  Christian  mira- 
cles can  claim.  It  is  the  testimony,  if  ever  such  testi- 
mony was,  not  of  man  merely,  but  of  God.  Even  as 
regards  one  who  docs  not  believe  in  the  distinctive 
doctrines  of  Christianity,  there  are  two  witnesses  to 
Christ  which  no  other  man,  whatever  may  be  his 
worth,  can  claim — the  liistory  of  the  Jewish  nation 
before  Ilis  coming,  and  the  history  both  of  the  Jewish 

*  Sec  Trench,  'Notes  on  the  Miracles,'  p.  4')  (sixtli  cditiojiV 

t  Comnurc  Ncander,  '  I/ife  of  Christ,'  p.  138,  Entrlish  translation  ;  Twcs- 

ten,  '  Vorlosinifrcn  uobtM'  tlie  Dogmatik,'    ii.,  ]).   17s ;  Vau  MilUcrt,  '  Boylo 

Lectures,'  SorniDU  xxi. 

X  Compare  lip.  Attcrbuiy,  'Sermons'  (1730),  vol.  i.,  p.  153. 


EesAYl.]  ON  MIRACLES.  jy 

and  of  the  Cliristian  world  afterwards.  Whether  it 
was  by  natural  or  "by  siij^ernatural  means,  it  cannot  be 
denied  that  He  to  whom  the  natural  and  the  supernat- 
ural are  alike  subject  has  permitted  the  course  of 
events  in  the  world  to  bear  a  witness  to  Christ,  such  as 
has  never  been  borne  to  any  other  person  who  has  ap- 
peared upon  earth  in  the  likeness  of  a  man.  It  cannot 
be  denied  that  the  prophetic  writings  contain  desci-ip- 
tions  which,  account  for  the  correspondence  as  we  may, 
do,  as  a  fact,  agree  with  the  person  and  history  of 
Jesus  of  N'azareth,  as  they  agree  with  no  other  man,  or 
body  of  men ;  that  the  rites  and  ceremonies  of  the 
Jewish  religion  have  a  meaning  as  typical  of  Him, 
which  no  other  interpretation  can  give  to  them ;  that 
the  temple  and  its  services  were  brought  to  an  end 
after  His  ajDpearance  on  earth,  as  if  expressly  to  exclude 
the  claims  of  any  future  Messiah  ;  that  His  dominion 
has  been  spread  over  the  civilized  world  to  such  an  ex- 
tent, and  by  such  means,  as  no  other  ruler,  temporal  or 
s^^iritual,  can  claim  ;  that  superstitions  have  given  way 
before  His  name  which  no  other  adversary  had  been 
able  to  shake  ;  that  doctrines  have  been  established  by 
His  teaching  which  in  the  hands  of  other  teachers  were 
but  plausible  and  transitory  conjectures.  However 
these  things  may  be  accounted  for,  they  are  sufficient 
at  least  to  mark  Him  as  the  central  figure  of  the 
world's  history,  looked  forward  to  by  all  preceding 
generations,  looked  backward  to  by  all  following  ;  they 
are  sufficient  to  secure  for  His  sayings  and  His  acts  an 
authority  which  cannot  be  claimed  by  those  of  any 
other  person. 

Y.  It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  state  how  mucli  this 
argument  is  strengthened  when  it  is  addressed  to  one 
who  believes,  no  matter  on  what  grounds,  in  any  of  the 
fundamental  articles  of  the  Christian  Faith.  I  do  not 
speak  of  one  who  believes  in  the  narrative  of  the  Gos- 
pels ;  for  to  such  an  one  tlie  miracles  are  not  matters 
of  question ;  but  of  one  who  in  any  sense  believes  in 
Christ  as  the  Itedeemer  of  mankind,  thoiigli  doubting 
some  of  the  records  of  His  earthly  life.     If  God  has 


13  -A.IDS  TO  FAITII.  [Essay  I. 

seen  fit  to  redeem  the  world  by  Christ  and  by  Christ 
alone,  wliat  marvel  if  the  history  of  Christ  and  of  the 
dispensation  preparatory  to  Christ  exhibits  signs  and 
wonders  such  as  no  other  history  can  claim  ?  "The  an- 
tecedent probability,  in  this  case,  is  for  the  miracles, 
not  against  them.  It  is  to  be  expected  that  an  event 
unique  in  the  world's  history  should  be  marked  by  ac- 
companiments partaking  of  its  own  character.  The 
miracles  are  not  every-day  events,  because  the  redemp- 
tion of  mankind  is  not  an  every-day  event ;  they  be- 
long to  no  cycle  in  the  recurring  phenomena  of  nature, 
because  Christ  has  not  often  suliered  since  the  founda- 
tion of  the  world.  Round  this  great  fact  of  man's  re- 
demption the  accessory  features  of  that  wondrous  nar- 
rative are  grouped  and  clustered  as  around  their  proper 
centre  ;  no  longer  the  uncouth  prodigies  of  the  king- 
dom of  Xature,  but  the  fitting  splendours  of  the  king- 
dom of  Grace.  It  was  meet  that  lie  v\'ho  came  as  the 
conqueror  of  sin  and  death,  who  had  power  to  lay  down 
His  life,  and  power  to  take  it  a^-ain,  should  come  also 
as  the  Lord  of  Body  and  the  Lord  of  Spirit,  having 
power  over  the  elements  of  matter  and  over  the 
thoughts  of  men's  minds ;  foretold  by  predictions 
which  no  human  wisdom  could  have  suggested,  tes- 
tified to  by  works  which  no  human  power  could  have 
accomplished.  Yiewed  as  part  of  the  scheme  of  Re- 
demption, the  marvels  of  the  Scripture  narrative  are  no 
longer  isolated  and  unmeaning  anomalies,  but  a  fore- 
ordained and  orderly  system  of  powers,  working  above 
the  ordinary  course  of  nature,  because  tlicir  end  is 
above  the  ordinary  course  of  nature.  The  incongruity, 
tlie  anomaly,  would  be  if  they  were  not  there — if  the 
salvation  of  the  souls  of  men  was  to  be  brought  about 
by  no  liiglicr  means  than  those  which  minister  to  their 
bodily  appetites  and  material  comforts.  The  daily 
wants  of  the  individual,  or  the  progressive  culture  of 
the  race,  may  be  provided  for  or  advanced  by  laws 
which  work  unceasingly  from  day  to  day,  and  from 
generation  to  generation  ;  but  we  seek  no  recurring 
law  of  the  Scripture  miracles,  because  we  expect  no  re- 


EssatL]  on  MIEACLES.  I9 

currence  of    that  fact   to   wliicli   all   Scripture   bears 
witness. 

8.  The  above  remarks,  though  only  preliminary  to 
the  main  question,  are  necessary  in  order  to  show  what 
is  the  real  point  to  be  established,  if  the  belief  in  the 
supernatural  is  to  be  overthrown.  It  is  not  the  rarity 
of  miracles — no  one  asserts  them  to  be  common  :  it  is 
not  their  general  improbability — no  one  asserts  them 
to  be  generally  probable :  it  is  not  that  they  need  an 
extraordinary  testimony  as  compared  with  other  events 
— such  a  testimony  we  assert  that  they  have.  It  is 
neitlier  more  nor  less  than  their  impossibility — an  im- 
possibility to  be  established  on  scientific  grounds,  such 
as  no  reasonable  man  would  reject  in  any  other  case  ; 
grounds  such  as  those  on  which  we  believe  that 
the  earth  goes  round  the  sun,  or  that  chemical  ele- 
ments combine  in  definite  proportions.  In  this  point 
of  view  the  argument  is  altogether  of  a  general 
character,  and  is  unafiPected  by  any  peculiarities  of 
probability  or  testimony  which  may  distinguish  one 
miraculous  narrative  from  another.  If  the  progress 
of  physical  or  metaphysical  science  has  shown  be- 
yond the  possibility  of  reasonable  doubt  that  miracles 
are  impossihle — if,  as  seems  to  be  the  tendency  of  a 
recent  argument,  the  assertion  of  a  miracle  is  now 
known  to  be  as  absurd  as  the  assertion  that  two  and 
two  make  five"-'' — it  is  idle  to  attempt  a  comparison  be- 
tween greater  or  less  degrees  of  probability  or  testi- 
mony. The  preceding  observations  will  in  that  case 
only  serve  to  show  what  it  is  that  we  have  to  surrender, 
and  to  rescue  the  inquiry  from  tlie  particular  fallacy 
which  seeks  to  underrate  its  importance  by  represent- 
ing it  as  only  affecting  the  accidents  and  excrescences 
of  Christianity.     Let  us,  at  the  outset,  be  clearly  con- 

*  See  'Essays  and  Reviews,'  p.  141.  It  is  astonishing  that  this  acute 
author  should  not  have  seen  the  absurdity  of  introducing  this  statement  in 
connection  with  testimony.  No  witness  could  possibly  see  two  and  two 
make  five,  or  four,  or  any  number,  in  the  abstract ;  he  must  see  it  in  connec- 
tion with  certain  visihle  objects.  Put  tho  case  in  its  only  possible  form  : — 
let  a  man  say  that  he  had  .seen  two  balls  and  then  two  more,  put  together, 
and  five  balls  produced  from  them  ;  and,  instead  of  an  impossibility,  we  have 
but  the  commonest  of  jugglers'  iricks. 


2Q  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  I. 

vinced  of  tlie  vital  importance  of  the  question,  in  order 
that  "sve  may  enter  on  its  examination  prepared,  if  ne- 
cessary, to  sacrifice  our  most  valued  convictions  at  the 
demand  of  truth,  but,  at  the  same  time,  so  convinced 
of  their  value  as  to  he  jealous  of  sacrificing  them  to 
anything  but  truth. 

0.  The  inquiry  concerning  the  possibility  of  mira- 
cles in  general  (as  distinguished  from  that  which  con- 
cerns the  credibility  of  the  Scripture  miracles  in  par- 
ticular) involves  two  distinct  questions,  which  must  be 
considered  separately  from  each  other.  The  first  of 
these  questions  relates  to  the  position  occupied  by  mira- 
cles with  reference  to  experience  and  to  the  empirical 
laws  of  matter ;  the  second  relates  to  their  position 
with  reference  to  philosophical  conceptions  of  God's 
nature  and  attributes.  It  is  indispensable  to  a  clear 
understanding  of  the  subject  that  these  two  questions 
should  be  kept  apart  from  each  other ;  though  it  will 
be  necessary,  in  discussing  the  first,  to  take  for  granted 
some  conclusions  which  w^ll  afterwards  have  to  be 
established  in  connection  with  the  second.  Let  us  then 
assume,  for  the  present,  that  we  are  justified  in  con- 
ceiving God  as  a  Person,  and  in  speaking  of  His  na- 
ture and  operations  in  the  language  which  we  should 
employ  in  describing  the  analogous  qualities  and 
actions  of  men.  We  shall  speak,  as  theists  in  general 
are  accustomed  to  speak,  of  the  luill,  and  the  jyiirioose^ 
and  the  design  of  God ;  of  the  contrast  between  His 
general  and  sjKcial  providence  ;  of  His  government  of 
the  world  and  control  over  its  laws ;  reserving  for  a 
subsequent  inquiry  the  vindication  of  these  and  similar 
expressions  from  a  philosophical  point  of  view. 

10.  The  argument  which  denies  the  possibility  of 
miracles,  on  the  ground  of  the  uniformity  of  nature, 
may  be  considered  under  two  heads:  first,  as  regards 
the  general  conception  of  a  system  of  natural  laws ; 
and,  secondl}^  as  regards  the  special  experience  of  the 
mode  in  which  those  laws  are  manifested.  The  former 
nuiy  be  fairly  stated  in  the  words  of  Hnme,  whose  rea- 
6onin<r  has  received  no  substantial  addition  from  the 


Essay  I.]  ON  MIRACLES.  21 

labours  of  subsequent  writers  on  the  same  side ;  "  A 
miracle  is  a  violation  of  the  laws  of  nature ;  and  as  a 
firm  and  unalterable  experience  has  established  these 
laws,  the  proof  against  a  miracle,  from  the  very  nature 
of  the  fact,  is  as  entire  as  any  argument  from  ex- 
perience can  possibly  be  imagined."  ^  The  argument, 
as  thus  stated,  was  just  as  stronger  just  as  weak  at  the 
day  when  it  was  written  as  at  the  p>resent  time :  it  has 
received  no  additional  strength  from  the  progress  of 
science  during  the  interval, — indeed  it  is  hard  to  see 
how  the  evidence  of  "  a  firm  and  unalterable  ex- 
perience," if  such  existed  at  any  time,  is  capable  of 
being  made  stronger.  No  scientific  man  in  the  last 
century  had  any  doubt  that  the  sensible  phenomena 
which  came  under  his  own  experience  and  that  of 
his  contemporaries  were  owing  to  some  natural  cause 
acting  by  some  natural  law,  whether  the  actual  cause 
and  law  w^ere  known  or  unknown.  The  nature  of  this  con- 
viction is  not  altered  by  any  subsequent  increase  in  the 
number  of  known  as  compared  with  unknown  causes:  the 
general  conception  of  "  a  firm  and  unalterable  ex- 
perience "  is  wide  enough  to  contain  all  discoveries 
anticipated  in  the  future,  as  well  as  those  already 
made. 

11.  In  one  respect,  indeed,  the  advance  of  physical 
science  tends  to  strengthen  rather  than  to  weaken  our 
conviction  of  the  supernatural  character  of  the  Christian 
miracles.  In  whatever  proportion  our  knowledge  of 
physical  causation  is  limited,  and  the  number  of  un- 
known natural  agents  comparatively  large,  in  the  same 
proportion  is  the  probability  that  some  of  these  un- 
known causes,  acting  in  some  imknown  manner,  may 
have  given  rise  to  the  alleged  marvels.  But  this  prob- 
ability diminishes  wdien  each  newly-discovered  agent, 
as  its  properties  become  known,  is  shown  to  be  inade- 
quate to  the  production  of  the  supposed  eftects,  and  as 
the  residue  of  unknown  causes,  which  might  produce 
them,  becomes  smaller  and  smaller.  We  are  told,  indeed, 

*  *  Philosophical  Works,'  vol.  iv.,  p.  103. 


22  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  I. 

tliat  "  tlie  inevitable  progress  of  research  must,  within  a 
longer  or  shorter  period,  unravel  all  that  seems  most 
marvellous ;"  '^  but  we  may  be  permitted  to  doubt  the 
relevancy  of  this  remark  to  the  present  case,  until  it 
has  been  shown  that  the  advance  of  science  has  in 
some  degree  enabled  men  to  perform  the  miracles 
performed  by  Christ.  When  the  inevitable  progress 
of  research  shall  have  enabled  men  of  modern  times 
to^  give  sight  to  the  blind  with  a  touch,  to  still  tempests 
with  a  word,  to  raise  the  dead  to  life,  to  die  themselves, 
and  to  rise  again,  we  may  allow  that  the  same  causes 
might  possibly  have  been  called  into  operation,  two 
thousand  years  earlier,  by  some  great  man  in  advance 
of  his  age.  But  until  this  is  done,  the  unravelling  of 
the  marvellous  in  other  phenomena  only  serves  to  leave 
these  mighty  works  in  their  solitary  grandeur,  as 
wrought  by  the  finger  of  God,  unapproached  and  un- 
approachable by  all  the  knowledge  and  all  the  power 
of  man. 

12.  We  have  already  observed  that  there  is  one 
kind  of  testimony  which  can  reach  to  the  supernatural ; 
namely,  the  testimony  of  the  person  who  himself  per- 
forms the  work ;  and  we  may  now  add  that  the  fact  of 
the  work  being  done  by  human  agency  places  it,  as 
regards  the  future  progress  of  science,  in  a  totally 
different  class  from  mere  physical  phenomena.  The 
appearance  of  a  comet,  or  the  fall  of  an  aerolite,  may 
be  reduced  by  the  advance  of  science  from  a  supposed 
supernatural  to  a  natural  occurrence  ;  and  this  re- 
duction furnishes  a  reasonable  presumption  that  other 
phenomena  of  a  like  character  will  in  time  meet  with  a 
like  explanation.  But  the  reverse  is  the  case  with  re- 
sjDcct  to  those  phenomena  which  are  narrated  as 
liaving  been  produced  hj  personal  agency.  In  propor- 
tion as  the  science  of  to-day  surpasses  that  of  former 
generations,  so  is  the  improbability  that  any  man  could 
have  done  in  past  times,  by  natural  means,  works 
^vhich  no  skill  of  .the  i)resent  age  is  able  to  imitate. 

*  'Essays  aud  Kcvicws,'  p.  109. 


Essay  I.]  ON  MIEACLES.  23 

The  two  classes  of  phenomena  rest  in  fact  on  exactly 
o^Dposite  foundations.  In  order  that  natural  occurrences, 
taking  place  without  human  agency,  may  wear  the 
appearance  of  prodigies,  it  is  necessary  that  the  cause 
and  manner  of  their  production  should  be  unhiowoi ; 
and  every  advance  of  science  from  the  unknown  to  the 
known  tends  to  lessen  the  number  of  such  prodigies  by 
referring  them  to  natural  causes,  and  increases  the 
probability  of  a  similar  explanation  of  the  remainder. 
Eut  on  the  other  hand,  in  order  that  a  man  may  per- 
form marvellous  acts  by  natural  means,  it  is  necessary 
that  the  cause  and  manner  of  their  production  should 
be  Jcnoicn  by  the  performer;  and  in  this  case  every 
fresh  advance  of  science  from  the  unknown  to  the 
known  diminishes .  the  probability  that  "svhat  is  un- 
known now  could  have  been  known  in  a  former  age. 
13.  The  effect  therefore  of  scientific  progress,  as 
regards  the  Scriptural  miracles,  is  gradually  to  elimin- 
ate the  hypothesis  w^hich  refers  them  to  unknown 
natural  causes,  and  to  reduce  the  question  to  the  follow- 
ing alternative:  Either  the  recorded  acts  were  not 
performed  at  all  (in  wdiicli  case  it  is  idle  to  talk  of  the 
l^robable  "honesty  or  veracity"  of  the  witnesses  ")  or 
they  were  performed,  as  their  authors  themselves  de- 
clare, by  virtue  of  a  supernatural  power,  consciously 
exercised  for  that  very  purpose.  The  intermediate 
theory,  Trhicli  attempts  to  explain  them  as  distorted 
statements  of  events  reducible  to  hnovyn  natural  causes, 
has  been  tried  already,  in  the  scheme  of  Paulus,  and 
has  failed  so  utterly  as  to  preclude  all  expectation  of 
its  revival,  even  in  the  land  of  its  birth.  There  re- 
mains only  the  choice  between  a  deeper  faitli  and  a 
bolder  nnbelief ;  between  accepting  the  sacred  narra- 
tive as  a  true  account  of  miracles  actually  performed, 
and  rejecting  it  as  wholly  fictitious  and  incredible; 
"v^dietlier  the  fiction  be  attributed  to  the  gradual  accre- 
tion of  mythical  elements,  or  (for  a  later  criticism  has 
come  back  again   to   the  older  and  more  intelligible 

*  See  *  Essays  and  Reviews/  p.  lOG. 


24  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  I, 

tlieory''')    to    the    conscious  fabrication   of   a   -svilfiil 
impostor. 

14.  The  argument  of  Hume,  wliich  may  be  taken 
as  the  representative  of  all  those  which  rest  merely  on 
the  general  conception  of  laws  of  nature,  was  refuted 
long  ago  by  one  who  wrote  as  the  advocate  of  his 
teaching  in  some  other  respects.f  A  miracle  is  not 
"a  violation  of  the  laws  of  nature,"  in  any  sense  in 
which  such  a  violation  is  impossible  or  inconceivable. 
It  is  simply  the  introduction  of  a  new  agent,  possessing 
new  powers,  and  therefore  not  included  under  the  rules 
generalized  from  a  previous  experience.  Its  miracu- 
lous character,  distinguishing  it  from  mere  new  dis- 
coveries in  nature,  consists  in  the  fact  that  the  powei*s 
in  question  are  supposed  to  be  introduced  for  a  special 
purpose,  and  to  be  withdrawn  again  when  that  purpose 
is  accomplished,  and  thus  to  be  excluded  from  the 
field  of  future  observation  and  investigation.  But  the 
supposition  of  such  powers  need  not  imply  any  viola- 
tion of  the  present  laws  observed  by  present  natural 
agents.  The  laios  of  nature^  in  the  only  sense  of  the 
phrase  which  is  relevant  to  the  present  argument,  are 
simply  general  statements  concerning  the  powers  and 
prppertics  of  certain  classes  of  objects  wdiich  have 
come  under  our  observation.  They  say  nothing  about 
the  powers  and  properties  of  other  objects  or  classes 
of  objects  which  have  not  been  observed,  or  which 
have  been  observed  with  a  different  result.  There  are 
laws,  for  instance,  of  one  class  of  material  agents 
which  do  not  apply  to  another ;  and  there  are  laws  of 
matter  in  general  which  are  not  applicable  to  mind; 
and  so  there  may  be  other  orders  of  beings  of  which 
we  have  no  knowledge,  the  laws  of  whose  action  may 
be  different  from  all  that  we  know  of  mind  or  body. 
A  violation  of  the  laws  of  nature,  in  this  sense  of  the 

*  In  this  way  the  mythical  theory  of  Strauss,  after  having  overthrown  the 
naturalistic  theory  of  I'aulus,  has  itself  in  turn  been  subjected  to  the  criti- 
cism of  IJrnno  liauer,  who  rejects  the  hypothesis  of  a  traditional  origin  of  the 
(jospels,  in  favour  of  that  which  ascribes  ihem  to  deliberate  fabrication. 

t  See  lirown  on  Cause  and  Ellect,  Note  E.  I  have  borrowed  the  leading 
idea  of  Brown's  argument,  though  dissenting  from  some  of  his  details,  ana 
therefore  unable  to  udoi)t  his  exact  language. 


Essay  I.]  ON  MIEACLE3.  25 

expression,  would  take  place  if,  in  two  cases  in  which 
the  cause  or  antecedent  fact  were  exactly  the  same,  the 
effect  or  consequent  fact  Vv^ere  different.  But  no  such 
irregularity  is  asserted  by  the  believer  in  miracles. 
He  does  not  assert  that  miracles  are  produced  by  the 
abnormal  action  of  natural  and  known  causes — on  the 
contrary,  he  expressly  maintains  that  they  are  pro- 
duced by  a  special  interposition  of  Divine  Power;  and 
that  such  an  interposition,  constituting  in  itself  a  dif- 
ferent cause,  toay  reasonably  be  expected  to  be  follow- 
ed by  a  different  effect. 

15.  So  ilir  then  as  a  miracle  is  regarded  as  tiie 
operation  of  a  special  cause,  producing  a"  special  effect, 
it  offers  no  antagonism  to  that  general  uniformity  of 
nature,  according  to  which  the  same  effects  will  always 
follow  from  the  same  causes.  The  opposition  between 
science  and  miracle,  if  any  exist,  must  be  sought  in 
another  quarter ;  namely,  in  the  assumption  (provided 
that  such  an  assumption  is  warranted  by  science)  that 
the  introduction  of  a  special  cause  is  itself  incredible. 
The  ground  of  such  an  assumption  appears  to  lie  in 
the  hypothesis  that  the  existing  forces  of  nature  are  so 
mutually  related  to  each  other  that  no  new  power  can 
be  introduced  without  either  disturbing  the  whole 
equilibrium  of  tlie  universe,  or  involving  a  series  of 
miracles,  coextensive  with  the  universe,  to  counteract 
such  disturbance.  This  seems  to  be  the  meaning  of 
the  following  observation  by  a  recent  writer: — "In  an 
age  of  physical  research  like  the  present,  all  highly 
cultivated  minds  and  duly  advanced  intellects  have 
imbibed,  more  or  less,  the  lessons  of  the  inductive 
philosophy,  and  have  at  least  in  some  measure  learned 
to  appreciate  the  grand  foundation  conception  of 
universal  law — to  recognise  the  impossibility  even  of 
a?iy  two  'material  atoms  subsisting  together  without  a 
determinate  relation — of  any  action  of  the  one  or  the 
other,  whether  of  equilibrium  or  of  motion,  without 
reference  to  a  physical  cause  —  of  any  modification 
whatsoever  in  the  existing  conditions  of  material 
agents,  unless  through  the  invariable  operation  of  a 
2 


26 


AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  I. 


series  of  eternally  impressed  consequences,  following 
in  some  necessary  chain  of  orderly  connexion — how- 
ever imperfectly  known  to  ns."* 

This  operation  of  a  series  of  eternally  impressed  con- 
sequences could  hardly  be  described  more  graphically 
or  forcibly  than  in  the  following  words  of  a  great  Ger- 
man philosopher: — "Lotus  imagine,  for  instance,  this 
grain  of  sand  lying  some  few  feet  further  inland  than  it 
actually  does.  Then  must  the  stormwind  that  drove  it 
in  from  the  sea-shore  have  been  stronger  than  it  actually 
was.  Then  must  the  preceding  state  of  the  atmosphere, 
by  which  this  ^vind  was  occasioned  and  its  degree  of 
strength  determined,  have  been  different  from  what  it 
actually  was  ;  and  the  previous  changes  which  gave  rise 
to  this  particular  w^eather  ;  and  so  on.  We  must  sup- 
pose a  diiferent  temperature  from  that  w^hich  really  ex- 
isted, and  a  difi'erent  constitution  of  the  bodies  which 
influenced  this  temperature.  The  fertility  or  barrenness 
of  countries,  the  duration  of  the  life  of  man,  depend, 
unquestionably,  in  a  great  degree,  on  temperature.  How 
can  you  know^ — since  it  is  not  given  us  to  penetrate 
the  arcana  of  nature,  and  it  is  therefore  allowable  to 
speak  of  possibilities — how  can  you  know  that  in  such 
a  state  of  the  weather  as  we  have  been  supposing,  in 
order  to  carry  this  grain  of  sand  a  few  yards  further,  some 
ancestor  of  yours  might  not  have  perished  from  hunger, 
or  cold,  or  heat,  long  before  the  birth  of  that  son  from 
whom  you  are  descended  ;  that  thus  you  might  never 
have  been  at  all ;  and  all  that  you  have  ever  done,  and 
all  that  you  ever  hope  to  do  in  this  world,  must  have 
been  hindered,  in  order  that  a  grain  of  sand  might  lie 
in  a  different  place  ?"f 

*  'Essays  and  Reviews,'  p.  133. 

t  Fichte,  'Die  Bcstininmug  des  Mcnschcn/  Wcrkc,  ii.,  p.  1.8.  For  the 
translation  I  am  indebted  to  an  excellent  American  work,  which  deserves  to 
be  better  known  in  this  country,  and  to  which  I  take  this  opportunity  of  ex- 
pressing my  own  obligations—'  The  Principles  of  Metaphysical  aud  Ethical 
Science,'  by  mv  friend  Professor  Bowen,  of  llarvard  College. 

Schlciermachcr  (  <  Der  Christliche  Glaubc,'  §  47,  p.   200)  expresses  in 

feneral  terms,  and  with  express  reference  to  miracles,  the  same  view  which 
'ichtc  has  exhibited  by  an  instance  in  relation  to  necessity  in  general.  "  A 
miracle,"  he  says,  "  has  a  positive  relation,  by  which  it  extends  to  all  that  is 
future,  and  a  negative  relation,  which  in  a  certain  sense  atVects  all  that  is 
past.  In  so  far  as  that  does  not  follow  which  would  have  followed  according 
to  the  natural  connection  of  tho  aggregate  of  finite  causes,  in  so  far  an  ctlect 


Essay  L]  ON  MIRACLES.  27 

16.  Without  attempting  to  criticise  the  argument 
as  thus  eloquently  stated,  let  us  make  one  alteration  in 
the  circumstances  supposed — an  alteration  necessary  to 
make  it  relevant  to  the  present  question.  Let  us  suppose 
that  the  grain  of  sand,  instead  ofbeing  carried  to  its  pres- 
ent position  by  the  wind,  has  been  placed  there  by  a  man. 
Is  the  student  of  physical  science  prepared  to  enumerate 
a  similar  chain  of  material  antecedents,  which  must  have 
been  other  than  they  were,  before  the  man  could  have 
chosen  to  deposit  the  grain  of  sand  on  any  other  spot 
than  that  on  wdiich  it  is  now  lying?  Such  a  conclusion 
has  indeed  been  maintained  in  general  terms,  without 
any  specification  of  antecedents,  by  the  advocates  of 
Fatalism ;  and  it  is  maintained  in  the  continuation  of 
the  passage  from  which  the  above  extract  is  taken.^* 
But  the  question  is,  not  whether  such  a  conclusion  has 
been  asserted,  as  many  other  absurdities  have  been 
asserted,  by  the  advocates  of  a  theory ;  f  but  whether  it 
has  been  established  on  such  scientific  grounds  as  to  be 
entitled  to  the  assent  of  all  duly  cultivated  minds, 
whatever  tlieir  own  consciousness  may  say  to  the  con- 
trary. :j:     The  most  rigid  prevalence  of  law  and  necessary 

is  hindered,  not  by  the  influence  of  other  natural  counteracting  causes  be- 
longing to  the  same  series,  but  notwithstanding  the  concurrence  of  all  effec- 
tive causes  to  the  production  of  the  etFect,  Everything,  therefore,  which 
from  all  past  time  contributed  to  this  effect  is  in  a  ccrtainiueasure  annihilat- 
ed ;  and  instead  of  the  interpolation  of  a  single  supernatural  agent  into  the 
course  of  nature,  the  whole  conception  of  nature  is  destroyed.  On  the  posi- 
tive side,  something  takes  place  which  is  conceived  as  incapable  of  following 
from  the  aggregate  of  finite  causes.  But,  inasmuch  as  this  event  itself  now 
becomes  an  actual  link  in  the  chain  of  nature,  every  future  event  must  be 
other  than  it  would  have  been  had  this  one  miracle  not  taken  place.  Every 
miracle  thus  not  only  destroys  the  original  order  of  nature  forever  after;  but 
each  later  miracle  destroys  the  earlier  ones,  so  fiir  as  these  have  become  parts 
of  the  series  of  eflective  causes."  Tlie  whole  argument,  as  Rothe  has  ob- 
served, rests  on  the  assumption  of  absolute  determinism. 

*  Not  .however  as  the  author's  own  conclusion ;  but  as  one  of  two  con- 
flicting doubts,  to  be  afterwards  resolved. 

+  "  Nihil  tam  absurde  did  potest,  quod  non  dicatur  ab  aliquo  philosopho- 
rum." — Cicero,  De  Divinatione,  ii.,  58. 

X  An  attempt  has  recently  been  made  to  prove  the  non-existence  of  free 
will,  by  means  of  statistical  calculations,  showing  an  average  uniformity  iu 
the  recurrence  of  certain  actions  in  certain  periods^of  time.  I'iie  resemblance, 
however,  between  statistical  averages  and  natural  laws  fails  at  the  very  point 
on  which  the  whole  **'eight  of  the  argument  rests.  A  natural  law  is  valid  for 
a  class  of  objects,  only  because  and  in  so  far  as  it  is  valid  for  each  individual 
of  that  class:  the  law  of  gravitation,  for  instance,  is  exhibited  in  a  single 
apple  as  much  as  in  an  orchard ;  and  is  concluded  of  the  latter  from  being 


28  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  I. 

sequence  among  purely  material  phenomena  may  be  ad- 
mitted without  apprehension  by  the  firmest  believer  in 
miracles,  so  long  as  that  sequence  is  so  interpreted  as 
to  leave  room  ibr  a  power  indispensable  to  all  moral 
obligations  and  to  all  religions  belief — the  power  of  Free 
Will  in  man. 

Deny  the  existence  of  a  freewill  in  man  ;  and  neither 
the  possibility  of  miracles,  nor  any  other  question  of 
religion  or  morality,  isworth  contending  about.  Admit 
the  existence  of  a  free  will  in  man ;  and  we  have  the 
experience  of  a  power,  analogous,  however  inferior,  to 
that  which  is  supposed  to  operate  in  the  production  of 
a  miracle,  and  forming  the  basis  of  a  legitimate  argu- 
ment from  the  less  to  the  greater.  "'^  In  the  Will  of  man 
we  have  the  solitary  instance  of  an  Efficient  Cause  in 
the  highest  sense  of  the  term,  acting  among  and  along 
with  the  physical  causes  of  the  material  world,  and 
producing  results  which  would  not  have  been  brought 
about  by  any  invariable  sequence  of  physical  causes 
left  to  their  own  action.  We  have  evidence,  also,  of 
an  elasticity^  so  to  speak,  in  the  constitution  of  nature, 
which  permits  the  inliuence  of  human  power  on  the  phe- 
nomena of  the  world  to  be  exercised  or  suspended  at  will, 
without  affecting  the  stability  of  the  whole.  We  have 
thus  a  precedent  for  allowing  the  possibility  of  a  sim- 
ilar interference  of  a  higher  will  on  a  grander  scale, 
provided  for  by  a  similar  elasticity  of  the  matter  sub- 
jected to  its  influence.  Such  interferences,  whether 
produced  by  human  or  by  superhuman  will,  are  not  con- 
trary to  the  laws  of  matter  ;  but  neither  are  they  the  re- 
sult of  those  laws.  They  are  the  work  of  an  agent  wlio 
is  independent  of  the  laws,  and  who,  tliereforc,  neither 
obeys  them  nor  disobeys  tliem.f  If  a  man,  of  his  own 
free  will,  throws  a  stone  into  the  air,  the  motion  of  the 
stone,  as  soon  as  it  has  left  his  hand,  is  determined  by  a 

observed  in  the  former.  But  the  uniformity  represented  by  statistical  aver- 
ages is  one  which  is  observed  in  masses  only,  and  not  in'individuals ;  and 
hence  the  law,  if  law  it  be,  which  such  averages  indicate,  is  one  wliich  oflcrs 
no  bar  to  the  existence  of  individual  freedom,  exercise*!,  as  all  human  power 
must  be  exercised,  within  certain  limits. 

*  Conipaie  Twesten,  '  Vorlcsungen  uebcr  die  Dogmatik,'  ii.,  p.  171. 

t  fcJee  Kothe,  in  'Studieu  und  Kritiken,'  1858,  p.  33. 


Essay  I.]  ON  MIKACLES.  29 

combination  of  ])urelj  material  laws ;  partly  by  the 
attraction  of  the  earth ;  partly  by  the  resistance  of  the 
air;  partlj^  by  the  magnitude  and  direction  of  the  force 
by  which  it  was  thrown.  But  by  what  Jaio  came  it  to 
be  thrown  at  all?  What  law  brought  about  the  cir- 
cumstances though  which  the  aforesaid  combination  of 
material  laws  came  into  operation  on  this  particular 
occasion  and  in  this  j^fii'ticular  manner?  The  law  of 
gravitation,  no  doubt,  remains  constant  and  unbroken, 
whether  the  stone  is  lying  on  the  ground  or  moving 
through  the  air ;  but  neither  the  law  of  gravitation,  nor 
all  the  laws  of  matter  put  together,  could  have  brought 
about  this  particular  result,  without  the  interposition 
of  the  free  will  of  the  man  who  throws  the  stone.  Sub- 
stitute the  will  of  God  for  the  will  of  man ;  and  the 
argimient,  which  in  the  above  instance  is  limited  to  the 
narrow  sphere  within  which  man's  power  can  be  exer- 
cised, becomes  applicable  to  the  whole  extent  of  creation, 
and  to  all  the  phenomena  which  it  embraces. 

17.  The  fundamental  conception,  which  is  indispen- 
sable to  a  true  apprehension  of  the  nature  of  a  miracle, 
is  that  of  the  distinction  of  Mind  from  Matter,  and  of 
the  power  of  the  former,  as  a  personal,  conscious,  and  free 
agent,  to  influence  the  phenomena  of  the  latter.  "We  are 
conscious  of  this  power  in  ourselves ;  we  experience  it  in 
our  everyday  life  ;  but  we  experience  also  its  restriction 
within  certain  narrow  limits,  the  principal  one  be'ingthat 
man's  influence  upon  foreign  bodies  is  onl}^  possible 
through  the  instrumentality  of  his  own  body.'^  Be- 
yond these  limits  is  the  region  of  the  miraculous.  In 
at  least  the  great  majority  of  the  miracles  recorded 
in  Scripture,  the  supernatural  element  appears,  not  in 
the  relation  of  matter  to  matter,  but  in  that  of  matter 
to  mind  ;  in  the  exercise  of  a  personal  power  tran- 
scending the  limits  of  man's  will.  They  are  not  so  much 
sujpermaterial  as  siijperliunian.  Miracles,  as  evidences  of 
religion,  are  connected  with  a  teacher  of  that  religion ; 
and  their  evidential  character  consists  in  the  witness 
which  they  bear  to  him  as    "a  man  approved  of  God 

*  Twesten,  '  Vorlesungeu  ueber  die  Dogmatik,'  i.  p.  368. 


30 


AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  I 


by  miracles  and  wonders  and  signs,  wliicli  God  did  b}?" 
liim."  He  may  make  use  of  naUiral  agents,  acting  by 
their  own  laws,  or  he  may  not :  on  this  question  various 
conjectures  may  be  hazarded,  more  or  less  plausible. 
The  miracle  consists  in  his  making  use  of  them,  so  far 
as  he  does  so,  under  circumstances  which  no  human 
skill  could  bring  about.  Y/hen  a  sick  man  is  healed, 
or  a  tempest  stilled,  by  a  w^ord,  the  mere  action  of 
matter  upon  matter  may  possibly  be  similar  to  that 
which  takes  place  wdien  the  same  effects  occur  in  a 
natural  way:  the  miracle  consists  in  the  means  by  which 
that  action  is  brought  about.  And  those  means,  we 
are  assured  by  the  word  of  the  Teacher  himself,  are 
nothing  less  than  the  power  of  God,  vouchsafed  for  the 
express  purpose  of  bearing  w^itness  that  God  has  sent 
him.  Is  it  more  reasonable,  taking  the  whole  evidence 
into  account,  to  believe  his  word ;  or  to  suppose,  either 
that  the  works  were  not  done  at  all,  or  that  they  were 
done  by  a  scientific  deception?  This  is  the  real  ques- 
tion to  be  decided. 

If,  indeed,  we  include,  under  the  term  natiore^  all 
that  is  potential,  as  well  as  all  that  is  actual,  in  the  con- 
stitution of  the  world — all  that  can  be  brought  about 
in  it  by  divine  power,  as  well  as  all  that  is  brought 
about  in  it  by  physical  causes, — in  such  an  extended 
sense  of  the  term,  a  miracle,  like  any  other  occurrence, 
may  be  included  within  the  province  of  nature.  We 
may,  doubtless,  believe  that  God  from  the  beginning, 
so  ordered  the  constitution  of  the  world  as  to  leave  room 
for  the  exercise  of  those  miraculous  powers  which  He 
foresaw  would  at  a  certain  time  be  exercised ;  just  as 
He  has  left  similar  room  for  the  exercise,  within  nar- 
rower limits,  of  the  human  will.  In  this  sense,  some 
of  the  scholastic  divines  maintained,  with  reason,  that  a 
miracle  is  contrary  to  nature  only  in  so  far  as  nature  is 
regarded  as  an  active  manifestation,  not  in  so  far  as  it 
is  regarded  as  a  passive  recipient  of  power.*     If  this 

*  This  is  clearly  expressed  in  the  language  of  Alexander  ab  Ales,  'Summa,* 
p.  ii.,  qu.  xlii.,  numb,  v.,  art.  o  : — "  Est  cnnn  potentia  activa,  et  est  potentia 
susceptiva,  et  est  potentia  aptala  et  potentia  non  aptata.  YA  est  potentia  ac- 
tiva tain  naturae  inferioris  quam  superioris  ;  susce{)tiva  autem  naturae  infe- 
rioris.    Et  verum  est  quod  quicquid  est  Deo  possibilc  secundum  potentiam 


PssayL]  on  M1PwACLE3.  3j 

distinction  is  once  clearly  understood,  the  question, 
whether  miracles  may  be  represented  as  the  result  of 
law^  or  not,  is  a  mere  verbal  question,  which  is  only 
important  from  its  liability  to  be  mistaken  for  a  real 
one.  Properly  speaking,  a  natural  effect  is  not  produced 
by  a  law,  but  by  an  agent  acting  according  to  a  law. 
Every  natural  phenomenon  has  its  physical  cause  in 
some  antecedent  natural  phenomenon  which  it  regularly 
follows ;  and  the  laws  of  nature  are  merely  classifica- 
tions of  some  of  these  sequences  with  others  of  a  simi- 
lar character  ;'^'  or,  as  they  have  been  aptly  called, 
"  the  uniformities  which  exist  among  natural  phenom- 
ena, when  reduced  to  their  simplest  expression."  f  In 
this  sense,  miracles  cannot  be  referred  to  a  natural  law, 
known  or  unknown ;  for  they  do  not  resemble  any  se- 
quence of  one  sensible  phenomenon  from  another ;  nor 
can  any  sensible  phenomenon  or  group  of  phenomena 
be  pointed  out,  or  even  supposed  to  exist,  the  occurrence 
of  which  would  be  invariably  followed  by  such  results. 
But  if  the  term  laio  be  used  in  a  different  sense,  to  de- 
note a  method  or  plan  conceived  in  the  mind  of  an 
intelligent  Being;  and  if,  by  referring  miracles  to  a 
law,  no  more  is  meant  than  that  they,  like  other  events, 
formed  part  of  God's  purpose  from  the  beginning,  and 
were  the  result,  not  of  sudden  caprice,  but  of  a  pre- 
ordained plan,  by  which  provision  was  made  for  them, 
that  they  should  be  wrought  at  their  proper  time  and 
place  without  disturbing  the  economy  of  the  universe, 
— such  an  expression,  allowing  for  the  necessary  imper- 
fection of  all  human  terms  when  applied  to  divine 
things,  is  perhax)S  the  most  true  and  reverent  conception 

actiram,  est  naturre  possibile,  non  simpliciter,  sed  secundum  potentiam  sns- 
ceptivam  ;  et  hoc  est  dicta  possibilitas  ;  sed  non  secundum  activum  potentiam, 
nee  secundum  aptatam."  A  similar  view  is  held  by  Albertus  Magnus,  '  Sum- 
ma,'  p.  ii.,  tract  viii.,  qu.  xxxi.;  and  by  Aquinas,'in  1  Sent.,  dist.  xlii.,  qu. 
ii.,  art.  2.  See  also  Neander,  '  Church  llistory,'  vol.  viii.,  p.  IGl,  Eng.  tr.  ed. 
Bohn. 

*  "  No  further  insight  into  why  the  apple  falls  is  acquired  by  saying  it  is 
forced  to  fall,  or  it  falls  by  the  force  of  gravitation  :  by  the  latter  expression 
we  are  enabled  to  relate  it  most  usefully  to  other  phenomena ;  but  we  still 
know  no  more  of  the  particular  phenomena  than  that  under  certain  circum- 
stances the  apple  does  fail." — Grove  on  the  Correlation,  of  Physical  Forces,  p. 
18,  Srd  edition.  t  Mill's  *  Logic,'  vol.  i.,  p.  385. 


32  ^II>3  TO  FAITH.  [EssATi 

of  these  events  wliicli  we  are  capable  of  forming  during 
this  present  life;  thongh,  like  other  analogies  trans- 
ferred from  the  human  mind  to  the  Divine,  it  is  the 
object  rather  of  religions  belief  than  of  philosophical 
speculation. 

18.  Our  argument  has  hitherto  i^roceeded  on  the 
assumption  that  we  are  justified  in  regarding  the  visi- 
ble world  as  under  the  government  of  a  personal  God, 
and  in  speaking  of  His  acts  and  pur2:»oses  in  language 
which  implies  an  analogy  between  the  Divine  mind 
and  the  human.  It  now  becomes  necessary  to  make 
some  remarks  in  vindication  of  the  assumption  itself, 
which  has  been  included  by  recent  criticism  in  the 
same  condemnation  with  the  consequences  which  we 
have  endeavoured  to  deduce  from  it.  Of  the  argument 
from  design,  "as  popularly  pursued,"  we  are  told  that 
it  "  proceeds  on  the  analogy  of  a  personal  agent,  whose 
contrivances  are  limited  by  the  conditions  of  the  case 
and  the  nature  of  his  materials,  and  pursued  by  steps 
corresponding  to  those  of  human  plans  and  operations : 
— an  argument  leading  only  to  the  most  unworthy  and 
anthropomorphic  conceptions.^  We  are  told,  again,  that 
"  to  attempt  to  reason  from  law  to  volition,  from  order  to 
active  power,  from  universal  reason  to  distinct  personal- 
ity, from  design  to  self-existence,  from  intelligence  to  in- 
finite perfection,  is  in  reality  to  adopt  grounds  of  argu- 
ment and  speculation  entirely  beyond  those  of  strict 
philosophical  inference."  f  We  are  told,  again,  that 
"  the  simple  argument  from  the  invariable  order  of  na- 

*  Powell,  'Order  of  Nature,'  p.  237.  It  is  natural  to  turn  to  this  more 
elaborate  work,  publislied  but  a  short  time  before  the  '  Essays  and  Keviews/ 
as  the  most  probable  source  from  which  to  complete  or  explain  anything 
which  seems  defective  or  obscure  in  the  author's  contribution  to  the  latter 
volume.  At  the  same  time  it  is  but  just  to  call  attentiou  to  some  indications 
of  a  very  difiercnt  and  a  far  truer  view,  in  an  earlier  work  by  the  same 
writer  ;  as  in  the  followinp;  passage,  which  I  venture  to  cite,  though  unable 
to  reconcile  it  with  his  latter  language  : — "  It  is  by  analogy  with  the  exercise 
of  intellect,  and  the  volition,  or  power  of  moral  causation,  of  which  we  are 
conscious  within  ourselves,  that  we  speak  of  the  Supreme  Afi/nl,  and  Moral 
Cause  of  the  universe,  of  whose  operation,  order,  arrangement,  and  adapta- 
tion are  the  external  manifestations.  Order  implies  what  by  analog]/  we  call 
intelligence  :  subserviency  to  an  observed  end  implies  \r\i(A\'\^cncc }'oresfeing , 
which,  by  analogy,  we  call  design." — Ofi  the  Sjiirit  of  the  inductive  J'/til6i- 
9j)hj/,  p.  1()<). 

t  Powell,  '  Order  of  Nature,'  p.  244. 


Essay  I.]  ON  MIRACLES.  33 

tnre  is  wholly  incompetent  to  give  us  any  conception 
whatever  of  the  Divine  Omnipotence,  except  as  main- 
taining^ or  acting  through,  that  invariable  universal  sys- 
tem of  physical  order  and  law;"  and  that  "a  theism  of 
Omnipotence  in  any  se?ise  deviating  from  the  order  of 
nature  must  be  entirely  derived  from  other  teaching."'^ 
In  order  to  test  the  value  of  these  and  similar  arguments, 
it  will  be  necessary  that  we  should  clearly  understand 
what  this  other  teaching  is,  and  what  it  teaches  us ;  as 
Avell  as  the  relation  in  which  it  stands  to  the  general- 
izations and  inductions  of  physical  science. 

In  examining  this  question,  we  are  not  directly  con- 
cerned with  the  higher  inquiry  regarding  the  degree 
and  character  of  man's  knowledge  of  God,  as  a  whole 
and  from  whatever  source  derived,  in  its  relation  to 
the  absolute  essence  of  its  Divine  Object,  and  to 
the  necessary  limits  of  man's  faculties.  The  diffi- 
culties connected  with  metaphysical  theories  of  the  Ab- 
solute and  Infinite,  which  have  driven  so  many  specu- 
lative minds  into  the  extravagances  of  Pantheism,  do 
not  affect  our  present  argument.  How  any  relation 
between  the  infinite  and  the  finite  can  be  conceived  as 
existing ; — how  God  can  be  contemplated  as  acting  in 
time  at  all^  whether  in  connection  with  the  j^henomena 
of  the  material  world,  or  with  the  thoughts  and  feelings 
of  men: — questions  of  this  kind  are  equally  applicable 
to  every  positive  conception  of  Divine  Providence  which 
we  are  capable  of  forming,  and  have  no  direct  bear- 
ing on  the  peculiar  claims  of  one  class  of  such  concep- 
tions as  compared  with  another.  The  general  answer 
to  such  difficulties  is  to  be  found  in  \\\q  confession  of 
our  ignorance  as  regards  the  mystery  from  which  they 
spring  and  on  which  their  solution  depends ;  but  this 
ignorance,  arising  as  it  does  from  the  imiversal  limits 
of  human  thought,  has  no  special  relation  to  one  age 
or  state  of  man's  knowledge,  more  than  to  another,  and 
is  not  removed  by  any  advance  in  those  departments 
which  fall  within  his  legitimate  field.  Pantheistic 
speculation  has  flourished  with  much  the  same  result, 

*  Powell,  '  Order  of  Nature,'  p.  247. 
2* 


34  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Esbat  L 

or  want  of  result,  in  the  earliest  and  in  the  latest  days 
of  philosophy,  in  ancient  India  and  in  modern  Ger- 
many ;  and  if  any  advance  is  to  be  expected  in  relation 
to  the  questions  with  which  such  speculation  deals,  it 
is  probably  to  be  looked  for,  not  in  the  fuller  solution 
of  the  questions  themselves,  but  in  the  clearer  appre- 
hension of  the  reasons  why  they  are  insoluble. 

The  question  now  before  us  is  of  another  character. 
It  relates  to  that  knowledge  of  God  which,  be  it  more 
or  less  philosophically  perfect,  is  that  which  practically 
determines  the  thoughts  and  feelings  and  actions  of  the 
majority  of  mankind;  being  connected  with  facts  of 
their  daily  experience,  and  with  ideas  intimately  asso- 
ciated with  those  facts.  And  the  form  in  which  it 
meets  ns  at  present  may  be  expressed  as  follows : — Is 
the  truest  and  highest  conception  of  God  to  which  man 
can  practically  attain  with  his  present  faculties  that 
which  is  suggested  by  the  observation  of  Law  and 
Order,  as  existing  in  the  material  world  ?  or  is  there  a 
higher  conception,  derived  from  a  different  class  of  ob- 
jects, by  which  the  errors  of  an  exclusively  physical 
theology  may  be  discovered  and  corrected  ? 

19.  Reduced  to  its  simplest  terms  the  question  really 
stands  thus : — Is  Matter  or  Mind  the  truer  image  of 
God  ?  We  are  told  indeed,  ''that  the  study  of  physical 
causes  is  the  sole  real  clue  to  the  conception  of  a  moral 
cause  ;  and  that  physical  order,  so  far  from  being  op- 
posed to  the  idea  of  supreme  intelligence,  is  the  very 
exponent  of  it." '"  We  are  referred  to  "the  grand  con- 
templation of  cosmical  order  and  unity  "  as  furnishing 
"proofs  of  the  ever-present  mind  and  reason  in  nature  ;"f 
but  we  have  yet  to  learn  what  is  the  exact  process  by 
which  the  desired  conclusion  is  elicited  from  the  prem- 
ises. 

20.  In  opposition  to  these  statements  I  do  not  hesi- 
tate to  repeat,  with  a  very  slight  modification,  the 
words  of  Sir  William  Hamilton,  "  that  the  class  of 
phenomena  which  requires  that  kind  of  cause  we  de- 
nominate a  Deity  is  exclusively  given  in  the  phenom- 

*  Powell,  '  Order  of  Nature,'  p.  235.  t  Ibid.,  p.  238. 


Essay  L]  ON  MIRACLES.  35 

ena  of  mind ;  that  the  phenomena  of  matter,  taken  by 
themselves  (you  will  observe  the  qualification — taken 
by  themselves),  do  not  warrant  any  inference  to  the 
existence  of  a  God."*  The  argument  which  would  de- 
duce the  conception  of  God  solely  from  physical  causa- 
tion bears  witness,  in  the  very  words  in  which  it  is 
announced,  to  its  own  imperfection.  The  very  names 
of  law^  and  order^  and  cause^  had  a  literal  before  they 
had  a  figurative  meaning,  and  are  borrowed,  in  com- 
mon w4th  the  whole  phraseology  of  causation,  by  the 
sciences  of  invariable  succession,  from  those  of  moral 
action  and  obligation.  We  discern  Law  as  Law,  solely 
.  by  means  of  the  personal  consciousness  of  duty  ;  we 
gain  the  conception,  not  by  the  external  observation  of 
what  is,  but  by  the  internal  apprehension  of  ivhat  ought 
to  he.  We  discern  Causation,  as  Causation,  solely  in 
and  by  the  productive  energy  of  the  personal  will, — 
the  one  solitary  fact  of  human  experience  in  which  is 
presented  the  consciousness  ofeffort,^ — oipower  in  action, 
exerting  itself  to  the  production  of  an  effect.  We  dis- 
cern Order,  as  Order,  only  in  so  far  as  we  conceive  the 
many  as  constituting  the  One^ — the  varied  phenomena 
of  sense  as  combined  into  a  single  whole;  and  the  ideas 
oi  unity  and  totality  are  given  only  in  the  personal  con- 
sciousness,— in  the  immediate  perception  of  the  one 
indivisible  Self,  and  its  several  modes  of  conscious  ex- 
istence.f  What  do  we  mean  when  we  speak  of  the 
Order  of  Nature  as  implying  a  presiding  Mind  ?  The 
language  is  unintelligible  save  as  interpreted  by  what 
the  personal  consciousness  tells  us  of  our  own  mind  and 
its  control  over  the  objects  that  are  under  its  dominion. 
In  the  little  world  of  man's  thought  and  its  objects, 
that  Order,  that  System  from  which  the  Cosmos  derives 
its  name, — that  Unity  which  binds  together  the  diverse 
elements  into  a  consistent  whole, — is  the  factor  contrib- 

*  *  Lectures  on  Metaphysics/  vol.  i.,  p.  26. 

t  "  Le  moi  est  la  seule  unite  qui  nous  soit  donnee  immediatement  i)ar  la 
nature  ;  nous  ne  la  rencontrons  dans  aucuue  des  choses  que  nos  facultts  qb- 
Bervent.  Mais  rentendcment,  qui  la  trouvc  en  lui,  la  met  hors  de  lui  par  in- 
duction, et  d'un  certain  nombre  des  choses  coexistantcs  il  cree  des  unites 
ratificielles." — Eoyer-Collard,  in  Jouffroy's  translation  of  Bcid,  vol.  ir., 
p.  350. 


36  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  1 

utecl  Ly  the  mind  to  its  objects, — tlic  product  of  Intelli- 
gence, compreliending,  arranging,  generalizing,  classi- 
fying. AVithoiit  this  action  of  mind  upon  its  objects, 
the  little  world  of  each  man's  knowledge  would  be,  not 
a  Cosmos,  but  a  Chaos, — not  a  system  of  parts  in 
mntual  relation  to  each  other,  but  an  endless  succession 
of  isolated  phantoms  coming  and  going  one  by  one.  It 
is  from  this  little  world  of  our  own  consciousness,  with 
its  many  objects,  marshalled  in  their  array  iiiTder  the. 
rule  of  the  one  conscious  Mind,  that  we  are  led  to  the 
thought  of  the  great  universe  beyond, — that  we  con- 
ceive this  also  as  a  world  of  Order,  and  as  being  such 
by  virtue  of  its  relation  to  an  ordering  and  presiding 
Mind.  Design,  Purpose,  Relation  of  parts  to  a  whole, 
of  means  to  an  end, — these  conceptions  borrowed  from 
the  world  of  mind,  can  alone  give  order  and  unity  to 
the  world  of  matter,  by  representing  it  as  moulded  and 
governed  by  a  ruling  and  purposing  Mind,  the  centre 
and  the  source  of  that  relation  which  mind  does  not 
take  from  matter,  but  confers  npon  it.  Through  this 
alone  can  Chaos  be  conceived  as  Cosmos  ;  through  this 
alone  can  the  Many  jDoint  to  the  One. 

21.  But  this  is  not  all.  The  very  conception  of  a 
Design  in  creation  implies  the  existence  of  a  Free  Will 
in  the  Designer.  If  man  were  not  conscious  of  a  free 
will  in  himself,  he  could  frame  no  designs,  he  could  con- 
ceive no  purposes  of  his  own  ;  and  without  the  assump- 
tion of  an  analogous  Divine  Will,  there  is  no  meaning  in 
his  language  wdien  he  speaks  of  the  Design  or  Purpose  of 
God.  I3ut  in  conceiving  God  as  a  free  agent,  we  neces- 
sarily conceive  Ilini  as  a  Person  ;  and  this  conception 
places  Ilim  in  a  totally  difi'erent  light  from  that  of  a  mere 
soul  of  the  world,  or  intelligence  manifested  in  a  system 
of  material  phenomena.  In  conceiving  God  as  a  Person, 
we  conceive  Ilim  as  standing  in  a  direct  relation  to  that 
one  object  in  the  world  which  is  most  nearly  akin  to 
Himself, — the  personal  soul  of  man,  by  whom  He  is  so 
conceived.  The  personality,  and,  as  implied  in  the 
personality,  the  moral  nature  of  God,  is  not,  as  it  has 
sometimes  been   represented,  an  isolated  conception, 


Essay  I.]  ON  MIRACLES.  3/7 

derived  from  a  distinct  class  of  facts,  and  superadded 
to  another  conception  of  a  Deity  derived  from  the  order 
of  nature  : "  it  is  the  primary  and  fundamental  idea  of 
a  God  in  any  distinctive  sense  of  the  Avord, — an  idea 
without  which  no  religion  and  no  theology,  no  feeling 
of  a  spiritual  relation  between  God  and  man,  and  no 
conception  of  a  mind  superior  to  nature,  can  have  any 
existence.  To  speak,  in  the  language  of  modern  pan- 
theistic philosophy,  of  a  Reason  or  Thought  in  the  uni- 
verse, which  first  becomes  conscious  in  man,  is  simply 
to  use  terms  without  a  meaning ;  for  we  have  no  con- 
ception of  reason  or  thought  at  all,  except  as  a  con- 
sciousness. And  to  speak,  on  the  side  of  physical 
philosophy,  of  a  Supreme  Mind,  evinced  in  tlie  laws 
of  matter,  is,  in  like  manner,  to  use  terms  which  have 
no  meaning  until  we  have  acquired  a  conception  of 
what  mind  is  from  the  consciousness  of  the  mind 
within  ourselves.  Our  primary  religious  consciousness 
is  that  of  man's  relation  to  God  as  a  person  to  a  per- 
son ;  and,  unless  we  begin  with  this  and  retain  it  in 
our  know^ledge,  the  very  name  of  God  is  unmeaning. 
If  this  be  Anthropomorphism,  it  is,  as  Jacobi  has  said, 
an  x\nthropomorphism  identical  with  Theism,  and  with- 
out which  there  remains  nothing  but  Atheism  or  Fe- 
tichism.f 

22.  The  following  quotation  from  the  same  eloquent 
and  profound  philosopher  is  probably  already  iamiliar 
to  many  readers,  but  is  too  excellent  in  itself  and  too 
appropriate  to  the  present  argument  to  be  omitted. 

*  "  At  the  utmost,"  says  Professor  Powell,  "a  physico-theolog.y  can  only 
teach  a  supreme  mind  evinced  in  the  laws  of  the  world  of  matter,  and  the 
relations  of  a  Deity  to  physical  things  essentially  as  derived  from  physical 
law,  A  moral  or  metaphysical  theology  (so  far  as  it  may  be  substantiated) 
can  only  lead  us  to  a  Deity  related  to  mind,  or  to  the  moral  order  of  the 
world." — Order  of  Katuve,  p.  245. 

I  consider  this  separation  between  two  sources  of  theology  as  fundamen- 
tally erroneous.  I  believe  that  man's  conception  of  God  as  mind  is  primarily 
derived  from  the  personal  consciousness  alone;  and  that,  however  much  it 
may  be  enlarged  by  the  contemplation  of  material  objects,  it  does  not  oriffi- 
nate  from  them,  and  can  only  be  legitimately  ap])licd  to  them  in  and  by  "its 
primary  characteristics  of  personality  and  a  moral  nature. 

t  "  Wir  bekennen  uns  demnach  zu  eiuem  von  der  Ueberzeugung,  dass 
der  Mensch  Gottes  Ebenbild  in  .sich  trage — unzertrcnnliclien  Anthropomor- 
phismus,  und  behaupten,  ausser  diesem  Anthropomorphismus,  der  von  jeher 
Theismus  geuannt  wurde.  ist  nur  Gotteslaugnung  oder — Ietichis7nus." — Von 
den  Gottlichen  Dingen,  Werke,  iii.,  p.  422. 


38 


AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essat  I. 


''^Nature  conceals  God ;  for,  throiigli  lier  whole  do- 
main, Nature  reveals  only  fate,  only  an  indissoluble 
chain  of  mere  efficient  causes,*  without  beginning  and 
without  end,  excluding,  with  equal  necessity,  both 
providence  and  chance.  An  independent  agency,  a 
free  original  commencement,  within  her  sphere  and 
proceedmg  from  her  powers,  is  absolutely  impossible. 
Working  without  will,  she  takes  counsel  neither  of  the' 
good  nor  of  the  beautiful ;  creating  nothing,  she  casts 
up  from  her  dark  abyss  only  eternal  transformations  of 
herself,  unconsciously  and  without  an  end ;  furthering, 
with  the  same  ceaseless  industry,  decline  and  increase, 
death  and  life, — never  producing  what  alone  is  of  God 
and  what  supposes  liberty, — the  virtuous,  the  immortal. 

"Man  reveals  God ;  for  Man,  by  his  intelligence, 
rises  above  Nature,  and,  in  virtue  of  this  intelligence, 
is  conscious  of  himself  as  a  power  not  only  independent 
of,  but  opposed  to,  Nature,  and  capable  of  resisting, 
concpiering,  and  controlling  her.  As  man  has  a  living 
faith  in  this  power,  superior  to  nature,  which  dwells  in 
him,  so  has  he  a  belief  in  God,  a  feeling,  an  experience 
of  His  existence.  As  he  does  not  believe  in  this  power, 
so  does  he  not  believe  in  God ;  he  sees,  he  experiences 
nought  in  existence  but  nature — necessity — fate."'!' 

23.  From  the  above  principles  it  follows  (to  use  the 
words  of  Sir  William  Hamilton)  "  that  the  imiverse  is 
governed  not  only  by  physical  but  by  moral  laws ;" 
and  "  that  intelhgence  stands  first  in  the  absolute  order 
of  existence — in  other  words,  that  final  preceded  effi- 
cient causes. ":j:  But  this  involves,  as  a  consequence, 
that  the  question  concerning  the  possibility  or  proba- 
bility of  a  miracle  is  to  be  judged,  not  merely  from 
physical,  but  also,  and  principally,  from  moral  grounds ; 

*  The  phrase  efficient  causes  (wirkende  Ursachen),  here  and  in  a  subse- 
quent quotation  from  tlie  translator,  must  be  understood  in  a  different  sense 
from  that  in  which  it  is  used  by  some  modern  writers,  to  denote  meta- 
physical as  distinguished  from  physical  causes— a  sense  adopted  above,  ^. 
'^S.  For  the  two  senses  of  the  phrase,  see  especially  a  note  in  Stewart  s 
'  Philosophy  of  the  Active  and  Moral  Powers,'  book  iii.,  ch.  ii,,  Collected 
Works,  vii.,  p.  27. 

t  Wcrke,  iii.,  p.  425.  Translated  by  Sir  W.  Hamilton,  'Lectures  on 
Metaphysics,'  vol.  i.,  p.  40. 

X  '  Lectures  on  Metaphysics,'  vol.  i.,  p.  28. 


Essay  I.]  ON  MIRACLES.  3q 

not  merely  from  the  evidence  furnished  by  the  phe- 
nomena of  the  material  world,  but  also  from  tliat  fur- 
nished by  the  religions  nature  of  man,  and  by  his  rela- 
tion to  a  God  to  whom  that  nature  bears  witness.  It  is 
altogether  an  erroneous  view  to  represent  the  question 
between  general  law  and  special  interposition  as  if  it 
rested  on  mechanical  considerations  only — as  if  it  could 
be  judged  by  the  difference  between  constructing  a 
machine  which,  wlien  once  made,  can  go  on  continu- 
ously by  its  own  power,  and  one  which,  at  successive 
periods,  requires  new  adjustments.*  The  miracle  is 
not  wrought  for  the  sake  of  the  physical  universe,  but 
for  the  sake  of  the  moral  beings  within  it ;  and  tlie 
question  to  be  considered  is  not  whether  a  divine  inter- 
position is  needed  to  regulate  the  machinery  of  nature, 
but  w^hether  it  is  needed  or  adapted  to  promote  the  re- 
ligious welfare  of  men.  If  the  spiritual  restoration  of 
mankind  has  in  any  degree  been  promoted  by  means 
of  a  religion  professing  to  have  been  introduced  by  the 
aid  of  miracles,  and  whose  whole  truth  is  involved  in 
the  truth  of  that  profession,  we  have  a  sufficient  reason 
for  the  miraculous  interjDosition,  superior  to  any  that 
can  be  urged  for  or  against  it  from  considerations  de- 
rived from  the  material  world.  The  very  conception 
of  a  revealed  as  distinguished  from  a  natural  religion 
implies  a  manifestation  of  God  different  in  kind  from 
that  which  is  exhibited  by  the  ordinary  course  of  na- 
ture ;  and  the  question  of  the  probability  of  a  miracu- 
lous interposition  is  simply  that  of  the  probability  of 
a  revelation  being  given  at  all.  In  the  words  of  Eishop 
Butler,  "  Revelation  itself  is  miraculous,  and  miracles 
are  the  proof  of  it."f 

24.  As  regards  the  general  question  of  the  jpos- 
sibility  of  miracles  (that  of  their  reality  must  of  course 
be  determined  by  its  own  special  evidence),  Paley's 
criticism  is,  after  all,  the  true  one : — "  Once  believe 
that  there  is  a  God,  and  miracles  are  not  incredible." 

*  This  objection  against  miracles  is  urged  by  Yoltaire,  '  Dictionnaire 
Philosophique,'  v.  'Miracles,'  and  is  answered  by  Bishop  Van  Mildert, 
'Boyle  Lectures,'  Sermon  xxi. 

t  'Analogy,'  part  ii.,  ch.  ii. 


40  AID3  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  I. 

For  an  impersonal  God  is  no  God  at  all ;  and  the  con- 
ception  of  a  personal  God  in  relation  to  man  neces- 
sarily involves  that  of  a  divine  purpose,  and  of  the 
manifestation  of  that  purpose  in  time.  Grant  this,  and 
there  is  no  d  priori  reason  why  sucli  a  manifestation 
may  not  take  ])lace  at  one  time  as  well  as  at  another ; 
why  the  beginning  of  a  spiritual  system  at  one  period 
may  not  be  as  credible  as  the  beginning  of  a  material 
system  at  another  period.  It  would  indeed  be  a  pre- 
carious argument  to  attempt  to  reason  positively  from 
an  djyriori  notion  of  the  divine  attributes  to  the  neces- 
sity of  creation  or  of  revehition ;  but  the  very  con- 
ditions which  render  such  an  argument  doubtful  only 
increase  the  force  of  the  negative  caution,  which,  re- 
fusing to  dogmatize  on.  either  side  concerning  what 
must  he  or  tnust  not  he,  is  content  to  seek  for  such  evi- 
dence as  is  v/ithin  its  reach  concerning  ichat  is. 

25.  AYith  the  question  oi  i\\Q  2^ossihility  of  miracles 
is  intimately  connected  that  of  their  valite  as  evidences. 
Both  questions,  indeed,  must  ultimately  be  decided  on 
the  same  principle  ;  and  the  influence  of  that  principle 
is  probably  at  work,  though  unconsciously,  in  the  minds 
of  some  who  endeavour  to  regard  the  two  inquiries  as 
wholly  distinct.  Sometimes,  indeed,  we  find  both 
united,  and  apparently  treated  as  parts  of  the  same 
argument  on  the  side  of  denial;  though  it  is  ob- 
vious that,  if  the  impossibility  of  miracles  can  once  be 
shown,  there  is  no  need  of  any  inquiry  into  their  com- 
parative value.  ^Nevertheless,  as  if  the  conclusiveness 
of  the  former  argument  were,  after  all,  somewhat 
doubtful  in  the  eyes  of  its  advocates,  we  .find  it 
coupled  with  an  attempt  to  disparage  the  value  of  the 
miracles  as  evidences,  even  supposing  their  reality.  It 
is  intimated  that  they  are  not  so  much  evidences  as 
ohjects  of  faith,  invested  with  sanctity  and  exempted 
from  criticism  by  virtue  of  the  religious  mysteries  with 
which  they  are  connected  :  '^  and  approved  divines  are 
referred  to  as  practically  making  the  doctrine  the  real 
test  of  the  admissibility  of  the  miracles,  and  as  ac- 

*  See  'Essays  and  Reviews,'  p.  140. 


Essay  I.]  ON  MIEACLES.  ^^ 

knowleclging  the  right  of  an  appeal,  superior  to  that 
of  all  miracles,  to  our  own  moral  tribunal.'''  The  feel- 
ing which  dictates  this  judgment  is  intelligible  at  least, 
if  not  excusable,  as  the  result  of  a  reaction  against  the 
opposite  error  of  a  former  generation :  but,  Avhen  the 
judgment  is  advanced,  as  it  often  is,  not  merely  as  an 
expression  of  the  personal  feelings  of  an  individual, 
but  as  a  general  statement  of  the  right  grounds  of  be- 
lief, it  is  at  best  nothing  more  than  an  attempt  to  cure 
one  evil  by  another,  introducing  a  remedy,  on  the 
whole,  worse  than  the  disease. 

Some  of  the  questions  introduced  in  this  connection 
properly  belong  to  an  earlier  stage  of  our  argument ; 
for  though  they  have  been  treated  by  some  writers  as 
bearing  on  the  evidential  value  of  miracles,  snpposing 
their  reality  to  be  admitted,  they  more  strictly  relate 
to  the  previous  inquiry  concerning  the  grounds  on 
which  we  believe  miracles  to  have  been  wrought  at 
all.  Thus  the  assertion  that  the  Gospel  miracles  are 
ohjects  of  faith  is  undoubtedly  true ;  but  it  is  true  in  a 
sense  which  is  by  no  means  incompatible  with  their 
being  also  evidences.^  To  us,  in  these  latter  days,  as 
regards  the  grounds  on  which  we  believe  the  miracles 
to  have  taken  place  at  all,  they  are  "objects  of  faith" 
in  that  proper  sense  of  the  term  faith  in  which  it  is 
opposed,  not  to  reason^  but  to  sUjlit.X  We  were  not 
eye-witnesses  of  the  miracles :  we  know  all  that  we 
know  about  them  from  the  testimony  of  others ;  and 
testimony  of  all  kinds  is  an  appeal  to  faith,  as  dis- 
tinguished from  sight, — prcescntia  videntur^  creduntur 
aljsentia.%  But  to  say  that  miracles  are  in  this  sense 
objects  of  faith,  is  a  very  different  thing  from  making 
them  exempt  from  criticism  by  virtue  of  the  religious 
mysteries  with  which  they  are  connected.  The  faith 
which  is  called  into  exercise  is  only  that  which  is  re- 

*  'Essays  and  Reviews,'  pp.  121,  122. 

t  When  it  is  assorted  that  the  miracles  arc  objects,  not  evidences,  of 
faitli,  it  is  obvious  that  the  word  _/a/^7i  is  used  in  two  difi'ercnt  senses.  In 
rchition  to  ohjects,  it  means  an  act  of  belief;  in  relation  to  evidences,  it  means 
a  doctrine  to  be  believed. 

X  2  Cor.  v.  7,  "  We  walk  by  f\iith,  not  by  sight." 

§  St,  Augustine,  Epist.  cxlvii.,  c.  2. 


42  AIDS   TO  FAITH.  [Essay  L 

quired  in  all  admission  of  testimony,  "whether  connect- 
ed with  religious  mysteries  or  not ;  Avhicli  exists  in  all 
cases  in  which  we  accept,  on  the  authority  of  others, 
statements  Avhich  we  are  unable  to  verify  by  our  own 
experience. 

26.  The  often-disputed  question,  whether  the  mira- 
cles j^rove  the  doctrine,  or  the  doctrine  the  miracles,  is 
also  one  which  properly  belongs  to  the  earlier  inquiry 
concerning  the  credibility  of  the  miracles  as  facts,  and 
which,  like  that  of  objects  and  evidences^  derives  a 
seeming  plausibility  from  an  epigrammatic  antithesis 
of  language  covering  a  confusion  of  thought.  There 
are  certain  doctrines  which  must  be  taken  into  account 
in  determining  the  question  whether  a  true  miracle — 
i.e.  an  interposition  of  Divine  jpoioer — has  taken  place 
at  all.  If  a  teacher  claiming  to  work  miracles  pro- 
claims doctrines  contradictory  to  previously  establish- 
ed truths,  whether  to  the  conclusions  of  natural  re- 
ligion or  to  the  teaching  of  a  former  revelation,  such  a 
contradiction  is  allowed,  even  by  the  most  zealous  de- 
fenders of  the  evidential  value  of  miracles,  to  invali- 
date the  authority  of  the  teacher.^^  But  the  right  con- 
clusion from  this  admission  is  not  that  true  miracles 
are  invalid  as  evidences,  but  that  the  supposed  miracles 
in  this  case  are  not  true  miracles  at  all ;  i.e.  are  not  the 
effects  of  Divine  power,  but  of  human  deception  or  of 
some  other  agency.  And  the  criterion,  as  has  been 
often  observed,  is  only  of  a  negative  character;  con- 
tradiction to  known  truth  is  suliicient  to  disprove  a 
Divine  mission ;  but  conformity  to  known  truth  is  not 

*  Tims  Clarke  ('Evidence  of  Natural  and  Revealed  Rclijxion,'  Prop,  xiv.) 
says,  "If  the  doctrine  attested  by  miracles  be  in  itself  impious,  or  manifestly 
tending  to  promote  vice,  then  without  all  question  the  miracles,  how  great 
.«;oever  they  may  appear  to  us,  arc  neither  worked  by  God  Himself  nor  by 
His  commission,  because  our  natural  knowledge  of  the  attributes  of  God, 
and  of  the  necessary  ditlerencc  between  good  and  evil,  is  greatly  of  more 
force  to  prove  any  sucIj  doctrine  to  be  false  than  any  miracles  in  the  world 
can  be  to  prove  it  true."  liut  Clarke  also  shows  that  this  admission  is  a  very 
different  tiling  from  making  the  doctrine  the  jiroof  of  the  miracles  ;  that,  on 
the  contrary,  the  miracles  are  the  proof  of  the  doctrine,  provided  that  the 
doctrine  he  s/tck  as  is  capable  of  biing  juwcd  1)7/  miracles.  See  also,  on  the 
same  question,  liishop  Sherlock,  Discourse  x.;  Penrose,  '  Ou  the  Evidence 
©f  the  Scripture  Miracles,'  p.  212. 


Essay  I.]  ON  MIKACLES.  43 

sufficient  to  establish  one.*  And  even  the  negative 
criterion,  however  valid  as  a  general  rule,  is  liable  to 
error  in  its  special  applications.  The  certainty  of  the 
truths  of  natural  religion  does  not  guarantee  the  cer- 
tainty of  all  tlie  conclusions  which  this  or  that  man 
believes  to  be  truths  of  natural  religion,  any  more  than 
the  infallibility  of  Scripture  guarantees  the  infallibility 
of  every  man's  interpretation  of  Scripture.  God  can- 
not contradict  Himself,  whether  lie  teaches  through 
nature  or  through  revelation  ;  but  man  may  misinter- 
pret God's  teaching  through  the  one  as  well  as  through 
the  other. 

27.  In  regarding  the  doctrinal  criterion  as  properly 
relating  to  the  question  whether  a  true  miracle  has 
been  wrought  at  all,  we  set  aside,  as  unworthy  of  seri- 
ous consideration,  the  supposition  which  has  sometimes 
been  advanced  in  favour  of  an  opposite  view ;  namely, 
that  real  miracles  may  possibly  be  performed  by  evil 
spirits  in  behalf  of  a  false  doctrine.  This  supposition, 
whatever  may  be  its  value  as  a  theme  for  argumenta- 
tive ingenuity,  is  not  one  which  we  are  practically 
called  upon  to  consider  by  any  of  the  actual  circum- 
stances with  which  we  are  concerned.  The  objections 
which  may  justly  be  urged  against  Farmer's  argument, 
when  carried  to  the  extent  of  denying  the  credibility 
of  demoniacal  miracles  of  any  kind,  do  not  apply  to  it 
when  limited  to  such  miracles  as  are  wrought  in  evi- 
dence of  a  religion,  and  to  the  question,  not  of  their 
theoretical  possibility,  but  of  their  actual  occurrence. 
It  may  be  unsafe  to  reason  d  priori,  from  our  concep- 
tion of  the  Divine  attributes,  that  the  permission  of 
such  agency  is  inconceivable  ;  but  we  may  fairly  re- 
fuse to  attach  any  practical  importance  to  the  supposi- 
tion, until  some  evidence  is  brought  forward  to  show 

*  Thus  Bishop  Atterbury,  in  his  Sermon  on  'Miracles  the  most  proper 
way  of  proving  the  Divine  Authority  of  any  Religion,'  says,  "  Though  the 
badness  of  any  doctrine,  and  its  disagreeableness  to  the  eternal  rules  of  right 
reason,  be  a  certain  sign  that  it  did  not  conic  from  God,  yet  the  goodness  of 
it  can  be  no  infallible  proof  that  it  did."  The  same  argument  is  handled  in 
Rogers's  '  Sermons  on  the  Necessity  of  Divine  Revelation/  pp.  60,  lOi),  ed. 
1757.  See  also  Warburton,  'Divine  Legation,'  b.  ix.,  c.  5;  Clarke,  'Evi- 
dence,' Prop.  ix. 


44  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  L 

that  it  lias  actually  been  realized.  It  remains  yet  to  be 
shown  that  in  all  human  experience  any  instance  can 
be  produced  of  a  real  miracle  wrought  by  evil  spirits 
for  purposes  of  deception  ;^  and  until  some  probable 
grounds  can  be  alleged  in  behalf  of  the  fact,  we  have 
not  sufficient  means  of  judging  concerning  the  theory. 
Doubtless,  if  it  is  consistent  with  God's  Providence  to 
permit  such  a  temptation,  He  will  also,  with  the  temp- 
tation, make  a  way  for  ns  to  escape  ;  but  wdiat  that  way 
will  be,  or  how  far  the  temptation  is  consistent  with 
God's  Providence,  we  cannot  decide  beforehand :  we 
must  wait  till  some  actual  occurrence,  with  all  its  ac- 
companying circumstances,  comes  before  ns.  The  only 
real  question  at  issue  is  not  whether  Christianity  is  a 
revelation  from  God  or  a  dehision  of  Satan ; — a  ques- 
tion which  no  sane  man  at  the  present  time  would 
think  worthy  of  a  serious  discussion  ;  but  whether  it  is 
of  God  or  of  man  ;  and,  consequently,  on  what  grounds 
and  to  what  extent  it  is  entitled  to  the  acceptance  of 
mankind.  What  man  has  taught,  man  may  revise  and 
improve.  If  the  doctrines  of  Christianity  are  no  other- 
wise of  divine  origin  than  as  all  human  wisdom  is  the 
gift  of  God,  they  have,  like  other  products  of  human 
wisdom,  no  further  claim  to  be  accepted  than  as  they 
may  be  verified  by  the  wisdom  of  later  generations. 
In  that  case,  we  may  listen  to  the  teaching  of  Christ 
and  His  apostles  as  we  listen  to  the  teaching  of  human 
philosophers,  with  respect  and  gratitude,  but  not  neces- 
sarily with  submission  :  we  claim  a  right  to  judge  and 
sift,  and  it  may  be  to  reject,  as  our  own  reason  shall 
determine  us,  acknowledging  no  other  authority  than 
that  which  is  due  to  the  wise  and  good  of  every  gener- 
ation of  mankind.  But  if,  on  the  other  hand,  the  doc- 
trines are  given  to  us  by  Divine  revelation  such  as  no 
hunum  wisdom  can  claim,  they  have  a  right  to  be  re- 
ceived by  virtue  of  the  authority  on  which  they  rest, 
distinct  from  any  whicli  they  may  possess  througli  their 
owij  intrinsic  reasonableness  or  capability  of  verifica- 
tion.    Of  such  a  Divine  authority  miracles  are  the 

*  See  Tenrose,  '  On  the  Evidence  of  the  Scripture  Miracles,'  p.  23. 


Essay  I.]  ON  MIEACLES.  45 

natural  and  proper  proof; — a  proof  which  all  men  are 
disposed  naturally  and  instinctively  to  admit  in  prac- 
tice, whatever  cavils  may  be  raised  against  it  on  the 
ground  of  imai^inary  difficulties  in  theory.  In  the 
W'Ords  of  one  of  the  ablest  of  the  writers  who  have  dis- 
cussed this  point,  "All  natural  scepticism  on  the  sub- 
ject of  miracles  attaches  to  the  question  whether  they 
were  really  performed,  not,  if  ^Derformed,  to  the  author- 
ity which  they  possess."'^*  For  all  real  purposes  of  con- 
troversy, the  question  may  be  stated  now,  as  it  w^as 
stated  hy  Gamaliel  of  old,  whether  the  counsel  and  the 
work  be  of  man  or  of  God ;  and  the  only  serious  in- 
quiry that  can  be  raised  concerning  the  miracles  of 
Scripture  is  w^hether  they  were  wrought  by  the  direct 
interposition  of  God,  or  were  the  result  of  human  skill 
or  other  natural  causes, — in  other  words,  whether  they 
w^ere  or  were  not  really  miracles  at  all. 

28.  The  question,  then,  only  requires  to  be  disen- 
tangled of  its  confusion  to  be  very  briefly  answered. 
If  it  is  considered  theoretically  and  in  the  abstract 
w^itli  reference  merely  to  the  logical  character  of  cer- 
tain doctrines  in  themselves,  and  not  to  the  circum- 
stances and  needs  of  men,  we  may  divide,  as  is  usually 
done,  the  doctrines  of  religion  into  those  which  are  and 
those  which  are  not  discoverable  by  human  reason; 
regarding  the  former  as  prior  to  revelation,  and  fur- 
nishing a  negative  criterion  which  no  true  revelation 
can  contradict ;  while  the  latter  are  posterior  to  reve- 
lation, and  rest  immediately  on  the  authority  of  a 
divinely  commissioned  teacher,  and  mediately  on  the 
proofs  of  his  divine  mission,  whatever  these  may 
be.f  And  it  is  at  this  stage  of  the  inquiry  that  the 
question  concerning  the  evidential  value  of  miracles 
properly  comes  in.  A  teacher  who  proclaims  himself 
to  be  specially  sent  by  God,  and  whose  teaching  is  to 
be  received  on  the  authority  of  that  mission,  must, 
from  the  nature  of  the  case,  establish  his  claim  by 
proofs  of  another  kind  than  those  which  merely  evince 
his  human  w^isdom  or  goodness.     A  superhuman  au- 

*  Penrose,  p.  24.        t  Compare  Warburton,  '  Divine  Legation,'  b.  ix.,  c.  5. 


46  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  t 

tliority  needs  to  be  substantiated  by  snpcrliuman  evi- 
dence ;  and  what  is  superhuman  is  miraculous.  It  is 
not  the  truth  of  the  doctrines^  but  the  authorittj  of  the 
teacher^  that  miracles  are  employed  to  prove ;  and  the 
authority  being  established,  the  truth  of  the  doctrine 
follows  from  it.  In  this  manner  our  Lord  appeals  to 
His  miracles  as  evidences  of  his  mission  :  "  The  works 
which  the  Father  hath  given  me  to  finish,  the  same 
works  that  I  do,  bear  witness  of  me  that  the  Father 
hath  sent  me."*  It  is  easy  to  say  that  we  might  have 
known  Jesus  Cln-ist  to  be  the  Son  of  God,  had  He  man- 
ifested Himself  merely  as  a  moral  teacher,  without  the 
witness  of  miracles.  It  is  easy  to  say  this,  because  it 
is  impossible  io  ])Tove  it.  We  cannot  reverse  the  facts 
of  history;  we  cannot  make  the  earthly  life  of  Christ 
other  than  it  was.  As  a  matter  of  fact  He  did  unite 
miraculous  powders  wdth  pure  and  holy  doctrine ;  and, 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  He  did  appeal  to  His  miracles  in 
proof  of  His  divine  authority.  The  miracles  are  a  part 
of  the  portrait  of  Christ ;  they  are  a  j^art  of  that  in- 
fluence which  has  made  the  history  of  the  Christian 
Church  what  it  is.  It  is  idle  to  speculate  on  what  that 
history  might  have  been  had  that  influence  been  difler- 
ent.  We  have  to  do  with  revelation  as  w^e  have  to  do 
with  nature, — as  God  has  been  pleased  to  make  it,  not 
as  He  might  have  made  it,  had  His  wisdom  been  as 
ours. 

Such,  even  at  its  very  lowest  estimate,  is  the  eviden- 
tial character  of  miracles  from  the  abstract  and  theo- 
retical point  of  view.  "  The  truths,"  says  Bishop  Atter- 
bury,  "which  are  necessaiy  in  this  manner  to  be  at- 
tested are  tliose  which  are  of  positive  institution;  those 
which,  if  God  had  not  pleased  to  reveal  tliem,  human 
reason  could  not  have  discovered ;  and  those  which, 
even  now  they  are  revealed,  human  reason  cannot  fully 
account  for  and  perfectly  comprehend.  Such,  for  ex- 
ample, are  the  doctrines  of  Baptism  and  the  Supper  of 
the  Lord,  of  the  Ilesurrection  of  the  same  Body,  of  the 
Distinction  of  Persons  in  the  Unity  of  the  Divine  Es- 

*  St.  John  V.  SG. 


Essay  I.]  ON  xMIKACLES.  ^tj 

sence,  and  of  tlie  Salvation  of  Mankind  by  the  Blood 
and  Intercession  of  Jesns.  It  is  this  kind  of  truths  that 
God  is  properly  said  to  reveal ;  truths  of  which,  unless 
revealed,  we  should  have  always  continued  ignorant ; 
and  'tis  in  order  only  to  prove  those  truths  to  have 
been  really  revealed,  that  we  affirm  miracles  to  be 
necessary.""^ 

29.  But  practically,  in  reference  to  the  actual  condi- 
tion and  needs  of  men,  the  evidence  of  miracles  has 
a  far  wider  range,  and  includes  all  those  doctrines, 
wdiether  natural  or  revealed,  which  have  at  any  time 
been  taught  or  revived  among  men  by  the  preaching 
of  the  Christian  Faith.  This  has  been  pointed  out, 
with  his  usual  practical  wisdom,  by  Bishop  Butler. 
"  It  is  impossible,"  he  says,  "  to  say  wdio  would  have 
been  able  to  have  reasoned  out  that  whole  system  which 
we  call  natural  religion,  in  its  genuine  simplicit}^,  clear 
of  superstition ;  but  there  is  certainly  no  ground  to 
affirm  that  the  generality  could.  If  they  could,  there 
is  no  sort  of  probability  that  they  would.  Admitting 
there  were,  they  would  highly  want  a  standing  admo- 
nition to  remind  them  of  it,  and  inculcate  it  upon 
them."  To  the  same  effect  ho  continues :  "  It  may 
possibly  be  disputed  how  far  miracles  can  prove  nat- 
ural religion ;  and  notable  objections  may  be  urged 
against  this  proof  of  it,  considered  as  a  matter  of  spec- 
ulation ;  but,  considered  as  a  practical  thing,  there  can 
be  none.  For  suppose  a  person  to  teach  natural  relig- 
ion to  a  nation  who  had  lived  in  total  ignorance  or 
forgetfulness  of  it ;  and  to  declare  he  was  commissioned 
by  God  to  do  so ;  suppose  him,  in  proof  of  his  com- 
mission, to  foretell  things  future,  which  no  human  fore- 
sight could  have  guessed  at;  to  divide  the  sea  with  a 
word;  feed  great  multitudes  with  bread  from  heaven; 
cure  all  manner  of  diseases ;  and  raise  the  dead,  even 
himself,  to  life :  would  not  this  give  additional  credi- 
bility to  his  teaching — a  credibility  beyond  what  that 
of  a  common  man  would  have ;  and  be  an  authorita- 

*  'Miracles  the  proper  way  of  proving  the  Divine  Authority  of  any  Relig- 
ion,' Sermons  (1734),  vol.  i.  p.  215.     See  also  Bishop  Sherlock,  Discourse  x. 


48  AIDS  TO  FAITn.  [Essay  L 

tive  publication  of  tlie  law  of  nature,  i.e.  a  new  proof 
of  it?  It  would  be  a  practical  one,  of  the  strongest 
kind,  perhaps,  wliicli  human  creatures  are  capable  of 
having  given  theni."'^^ 

In  this  passage,  the  good  sense  of  Butler  has  solved 
the  question  in  its  practical  aspect,  leaving  the  tlieo- 
retical  difficulty  in  its  proper  insignificance.  Xo  doubt, 
if  we  are  at  liberty  to  suppose  a  totally  different  state  of 
tilings  from  the  actual  one,  we  may  deduce  a  great 
num-ber  of  hypothetical  consequences  concerning  what 
might  have  i3een  the  case,  but  is  not.  If  all  men 
j^ossessed  a  perfect  system  of  natural  religion,  no  author- 
itative publication  of  natural  truth  would  be  needed ; 
and  no  teaching  which  contradicted  men's  natural  belief 
would  have  any  claim  to  be  received.  And  so,  if  all 
men  were  possessed  of  perfect  bodily  health,  no  med- 
icine would  be  needed  to  give  it  them ;  and  any  medi- 
cine which  tended  to  alter  their  state  of  health  would 
be  injurious.  Unhappily,  both  suppositions  are  untrue 
and  the  conclusions  practically  fall  to  the  ground  with 
them.  It  may  be  granted  that  the  authority  of  which 
miracles  are  a  proof  is  but  an  accidental  and  relative 
evidence  of  truths  of  this  character.  Still,  the  accident 
is  one  which  has  extended  over  the  greater  part  of 
mankind  ;  and  the  relation  is  coextensive  with  it.  Aiul 
this  consideration  must  serve  to  modify  in  practice  the 
negative  criterion  which  is  allowed  to  be  valid  in  theory. 
In  whatever  degree  any  man  does  not  possess  a  perfect 
natural  religion,  in  the  same  degree  he  is  liable  to  error 
in  judging  of  the  truth  of  a  revelation  solely  from 
internal  evidence.  And  even  the  man  who,  in  the  pres- 
ent day,  claims  the  right  to  exercise  such  a  judgment, 
may  be  reminded  that  the  knowledge  on  which  his 
claim  is  based  is  in  no  small  degree  owing  to  that  very 
authoritative  teaching  on  which  his  judgment  is  to  be 
passed  : — airekaKTiae  KaOairepel  ra  ircSKapia  ^evvrjOevra 
TTjv  fjLTjripa.  "  The  fact,"  says  Mr.  Davison,  ''is  not  to 
be  denied  ;  the  religion  of  Nature  A(^5  had  the  opportu- 

*  'Analogy,'  part  ii.,  cli.  i. 


Essay  I]  ON  MIRACLES.  4g 

nity  of  rekindling  her  faded  taper  by  the  Gospel  light, 
whether  furtively  or  unconsciously  taken.  Let  her  not 
dissemble  the  obligation  and  the  conveyance,  and  make 
a  boast  of  the  splendour,  as  though  it  were  originally 
her  own,  or  had  always  in  her  hands  been  sufficient  for 
the  illumination  of  the  w^orld."^ 

30.  The  whole  question  of  the  value  of  miracles  as 
evidences  of  Christianity  must,  in  fact,  be  answered  by 
means  of  the  same  distinction  on  w^hich  depends  the 
question  of  their  credibility; — the  distinction,  namely, 
between  God's  general  manifestations  of  Himself  in 
the  ordinary  course  of  nature,  and  His  special  mani- 
festation of  Himself  by  supernatural  signs.  Those  who 
deny  the  existence  of  any  special  revelation  of  religious 
truths,  distinct  from  that  general  sense  in  which  man's 
reason  itself  and  all  that  it  can  discover  are  the  gifts  of 
Him  from  whom  every  good  thing  comes ; — those  who 
deny  that  any  teaching  has  been  made  to  man  by 
special  inspiration  of  particular  teachers,  in  a  sense 
different  from  that  in  which  all  holy  desires,  all  good 
counsels,  and  all  just  works  proceed  from  the  inspiration 
of  the  Holy  Spirit; — such  persons  are  only  consistent 
when  they  deny  that  miracles  have  any  value  as  evi- 
dences of  religious  truth,  and  are  still  more  consistent 
if  they  deny  that  such  works  have  ever  been  wrought. 
If  religion  teaches  nothing  but  what  every  man,  by 
God's  grace,  may  discover,  or  at  least  verify,  for  aimself, 
the  distinction  between  natural  and  revealed  religion 
ceases  to  exist,  and  with  it  the  distinction  between 
natural  and  supernatural  evidences  of  the  truth.  If  the 
ordinary  witness  of  man's  reason  or  conscience  is 
sufficient  for  all  purposes  of  religion,  the  extraordinary 
witness  becomes  su|)erfluous  if  it  agrees  with  this,  and 
pernicious  if  it  differs  from  it.  But  this  absolute 
sufficiency  of  the  natural  reason  is  the  very  point  which 
history  and  philosophy  concur  to  call  in  question. 

31.  The  following  words  of  a  learned  and  thoughtful 
prelate  of  the  English  Church  may  be  cited  and  adopted 

*  '  Discourses  on  Prophecy,'  p.  G  (ith  cditiou). 
3 


50  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essat  I. 

as  expressing  tlio  conclusions  which  I  have  endeavour- 
ed, however  imperfectly,  to  establish  in  common  with 
liim  :  "  It  appears,  then,  on  a  review  of  the  preceding 
arguments,  that  the  Scripture  miracles  stand  on  a  solid 
basis,  which  no  reasoning  can  overthrow.  Their  pos- 
sibility cannot  be  denied  without  denying  the  very  na- 
ture of  God  as  an  all-powerful  Being  :  their  jprobainlity 
cannot  be  questioned  without  questioning  Ilis  moral 
perfections :  and  their  certainty,  as  matters  of  fact,  can 
only  be  invalidated  by  destroying  the  very  foundations 
of  all  human  testimony. 

"  Upon  these  grounds  we  may  safely  leave  the 
subject  in  the  hands  of  any  wise  and  considerate  man  : 
and  we  may  venture  to  affirm  that  no  person  of  such  a 
character  will,  after  an  attentive  examination  of  these 
points,  ever  sutler  his  faith  in  the  miracles,  by  which 
the  Divine  authority  of  the  Christian  revelation  is 
supported,  to  be  shaken.  Convinced  that,  by  a  fair 
chain  of  reasoning,  every  one  wdio  denies  them  must  be 
driven  to  the  necessity  of  maintaining  atheistical  prin- 
ciples, by  questioning  either  the  power,  or  wisdom,  or 
goodness  of  the  Creator,  the  true  philosopher  will  yield 
to  the  force  of  this  consideration,  as  well  as  to  the  over- 
powering evidences  of  the  facts  themselves  ;  and  will 
thankfully  accept  the  dispensation  which  God  hath 
thus  graciousl}^  vouchsafed  to  reveal.  He  will  sufier 
neither  wit,  nor  ridicule,  nor  sophistry,  to  rob  him  of 
this  anchor  of  hisiiiith;  but  will  turn  to  his  Saviour 
with  the  confidence  so  emphatically  expressed  by 
Nicodemus  :  '  Eabbi,  we  IvNow  that  thou  art  a  Teacher 
come  from  God ;  for  no  man  can  do  these  miracles 
that  Thou  doest,  except  God  be  with  him.'  ""^^ 

To  these  remarks,  which  are  applicable  to  every  age 
and  race  of  men  to  whom  the  Christian  evidences  may 
come,  it  may  perhaps  not  be  inappropriate  to  add  a 
further  observation  having  a  more  especial  reference 
to  ourselves.  The  very  attacks  which  have  been  made, 
in  the  supposed  interests  of  science,  upon  the  miracu- 

*  Yau  Mildcrt,  'Doyle  Lectures,'  Semiou  xxi. 


Essay  I.]  ON  MIEACLE3.  5^ 

Ions  element  of  the  Gospel  narrative,  may  themselves 
serve,  if  rightly  considered,  to  give  to  that  very  element 
a  new  significance,  and  to  point  to  a  moral  purpose 
more  discernible  now  than  of  old.  An  age  of  advanced 
physical  knowledge  has  its  especial  temptations,  no  less 
than  its  especial  privileges.  Few  indeed,  it  is  trusted, 
will  be  found  to  repeat  what  one  great  scientific  teacher 
of  the  present  century  has  been  found  to  assert,  that 
the  heavens  declare,  not  the  glory  of  God,  but  only  the 
glory  of  the  astronomer.  Yet  this  bold  and  profane 
language  is  only  the  extreme  expression  of  a  tendency 
against  which  an  age  like  the  present  has  especial  need 
to  watch  and  pray.  Against  such  a  tendency  it  is  no 
small  safeguard  that  men  of  science  should  be  trained 
from  their  earliest  childhood  in  records  which  at  every 
page  tell  of  the  personal  presence  of  Him  by  whom  all 
things  were  made,  manifested  in  direct  control  over  the 
delegated  workings  of  His  visible  creation.  It  is  but 
one  form  of  His  perpetual  presence  with  His  Church, 
that  in  founding  a  Faith  destined  to  ally  itself  with  the 
intellectual  cuUivation  of  all  succeeding  generations. 
He  should  have  founded  it  in  such  a  manner  as  to  fur- 
nish, in  the  record  of  its  origin,  a  lesson  of  the  spirit  in 
which  that  cultivation  should  be  pursued,  and  a  safe- 
guard against  the  perils  to  which  it  is  especially  ex- 
posed. If  there  are  times  when  the  very  vastness  of 
the  material  system  which  science  discloses  seems  to 
thrust  the  Author  of  all  to  an  almost  infinite  distance 
from  us ; — if  there  are  times  when  we  feel  almost  tempt- 
ed to  echo  the  wish  of  the  poet,  to  be  "  a  Pagan 
suckled  in  a  creed  outworn,"  so  that  we  might  but 
have  a  clearer  sight  of  the  presence  of  Deity  among  the 
phenomena  of  nature ; — if  there  are  times  when  the 
heaven  that  is  over  our  heads  seems  to  be  brass,  and 
the  earth  that  is  under  us  to  be  iron,  and  we  feel  our 
hearts  sink  within  us  under  the  calm  pressure  of  un- 
yielding and  unsympathizing  Law,  as  those  of  the 
disciples  of  old  sank  within  them  under  the  stormy  vio- 
lence of  wind  and  wave ; — at  such  times  we  may  learn 
our  lesson  and  feel  our  consolation,  as  we  turn  to  those 


^2  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  I. 

vivid  pictures  wliicli  our  Sacred  Story  portrays  of  the 
personal  j^ower  of  the  Incarnate  God  visibly  ruling  His 
creation ;  and  may  hear  through  them  the  present  voice 
of  Him  who  spake  on  the  waters,  *'Ee  of  good  cheer; 
it  is  I ;  be  not  afraid." 


ESSAY     II. 

ON  THE  STUDY  OF  THE  EVIDENCES  OF  CHRISTIANITY. 


^, 


CONTENTS  OF  ESSAY  II. 


1.  Inteoduction. 

2.  Eeaction  against  the  study  of  Evi- 

dences. 

3.  Circumstances  of  the  Infidel  Contro- 

versy in  the  17th  and  Ibth  centu- 
ries. 

4.  Change  of  position  of  Christian  apolo- 

gists occasioned  by  change  of  tactics 
of  Infidels. 

5.  Internal  condition  of  the  Church. 

6.  Else  of  the  Methodist  and  Evangeli- 

cal movement — its  excesses. 

7.  "Want  of  Church  activity. 

8.  The    "  New    Birth  "    preached    by 

Whitfield  and  the  Wesleys. 

9.  Decay  of  theological  learning  among 

the  Evangelical  leaders. 

10.  Ultimate  development  of  false  princi- 

ples when  left  unchecked. 

11.  Infiuences  loosing  men's  hold  upon  the 

Historical  element  in  Christianity — 
German  Keology. 

12.  Charms  of  the  foreign  literature— In- 

fluence of  the  new  opinions  on  the 
current  literature  of  the  country — 
Keligion  regarded  as  an  affair  of  sen- 
timent, 

13.  Inadequacy  of  the  system  to  meet  the 

mere  moral  wants  of  man — protest 
against  the  foundation  of  the  whole 
theory. 


14.  A  religion  disentangled  from  all  his 

torical  inquiries,  and  commending 
itself  to  the  mind  by  its  intrinsic 
beauty  and  suitability  to  man's  wants 
and  wishes,  is  not  Christianity, 

15.  The  essential  connexion  of  Christian- 

ity with  the  history  of  past  ages  ad- 
vances civilization  wherever  Chris- 
tianity prevails. 

16.  Disadvantages  of  the  mean  and  illit- 

erate in  judijing  of  the  historical  ev- 
idences of  Christianity. 

17.  Direct  evidence  within  the  reach  of 

the  humbler  classes. 

18.  Development      of     critical     inquiry 

abroad  has  diminished  the  dithcul- 
ties  of  comparatively  unlearned 
readers. 

19.  Origin  of  the  Christian  religion  not  a 

very  remote  event— Absurdity  of  the 
mythical  theory  as  applied  to'  it. 

20.  Strauss's  'Life  of  Jesus'  merely  the 

working  out  of  a  foregone  conclu- 
sion—Insufliciency  of  the  theories 
of  Strauss's  successors — Causes  and 
remedies  of  the  present  panic — Dan- 
ger of  concentrating  a  whole  system 
of  belief  upon  a  single  point— Eo- 
manist  creed. 

21.  Order  in  which  sceptical  objections 

arc  to  bo  dealt  with. 


22. 


Very  little  new  matter  to  be  produced 
by  Infidelity— Conclusion. 


ON  THE  STUDY  OF  THE  EVIDENCES  OF 
CHRISTIANITY. 


1.  "  Evidences  of  Cliristianity !  "  exclaims  the  late 
Mr.  Coleridge  in  one  of  the  most  popular  of  his  prose- 
works,  "  I  am  weary  of  the  word.    Make  a  man  feel  the 

want  of  it and  you  may  safely  trust  it  to  its 

own  evidence." 

There  can  be  little  doubt,  I  think,  that  these  words 
express  the  prevailing  sentiments  of  a  very  considerable 
number  of  Christians  at  the  present  day ;  and  it  cannot 
be  denied  that,  for  many  years  back,  there  has  been  a 
general  distaste  for  that  ajwlogetic  religious  literature 
which  was  popular  in  the  last  century. 

2.  This  has  doubtless  been  greatly  owing  to  a  Bcac- 
Hon  from  the  disproportionate  attention  paid  to  such 
literature  by  the  Divines  of  a  former  age,  and  has  taken 
place  in  virtue  of  that  general  rule  which  seems  to  or- 
dain that  an  over  value  of  any  hranch  of  knowledge  in 
one  generation  shall  he  attended  hy  an  unjust  dejrrecia- 
tion  of  it  in  the  next.  The  argumentative  value  of 
tilings  even  so  important  as  the  evidences  of  religion 
may,  unquestionably,  engross  the  public  mind  too 
much  ;  and  he  who  is  continually  occupied  in  contem- 
plating and  stating  the  proofs  of  its  truth  will  fail  of 
reaching  the  just  standard  of  a  Christian  teacher,  or  a 
Christian  man.  Such  a  person  will  be  like  a  prince 
who  employs  all  his  time,  and  strength,  and  resources 
in  raising  fortresses  about  a  territory  which  he  does  not 
carefully  govern  ;  or  like  a  landlord  who  lives  but  to 
accumulate  muniments  of  an  estate  which  he  neglects  to 
till.  But  the  folly  of  such  conduct  would  be  no  excuse 
for  suffering  our  frontiers  to  lie  open,  or  our  title-deeds 
to  be  lost.     Yet  something  very  like  such  advice  is 


56  -A-IDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  II. 

sometimes  offered  to  ns.  Our  forefathers,  perhaps, 
were  too  apt  to  inchide  all  strong  energy  of  emotion 
and  play  of  fancy  in  their  general  and  unsparing  cen- 
sures of  enthusiasm  ;  and  some  of  us  arc  disposed  to 
redress  the  balance  by  appealing  exclusively  to  the 
imagination  and  the  feelings.  We  see  that  it  will  not 
do  to  address  the  head  alone,  and  therefore  we  will  not 
address  it  at  all,  but  speak  only  to  the  heart. 

Kow,  it  is  important  to  observe  that  this  reaction 
was  so  far  from  springing  from  any  failure  of  the  ajDolo- 
gists  in  their  ^^roper  work,  that  it  would  hardly  have 
been  possible  if  that  work  had  not  been  thoroughly 
done.  Their  proper  work  was  to  drive  the  infidel 
writers  of  their  own  age  out  of  the  field  ;  and  never 
was  task  more  completely  accomplished.  Xo  litera- 
ture, of  any  recent  date,  has  perished  more  completely 
than  the  infidel  literature  of  the  early  and  middle  parts 
of  the  last  century. 

Ipsa;  periere  rnmce. 

It  is  only  some  curious  antiquary,  loving  to  parade 
forgotten  lore,  wlio  now  searches  the  pages  of  such 
writers  as  Toland  or  Tindal,  and  Chubb,  and  Morgan, 
and  Coward,  and  Collins — though  some  of  them  were 
really  men  of  parts,  and  all  conspicuous  in  their  day. 
Their  very  names,  indeed,  would  have  passed  wholly 
from  remembrance,  but  that  some  of  them  were  an- 
swered in  works  which  "  posterity  will  not  easily  let 
die  ;  "  and  almost  all  are  found  by  the  young  student 
of  theology  enumerated  by  Leland  in  his  '  Yiew  of  the 
Deistical  Writers.'-  They  survive,  like  the  heroes  of 
the  '  Newgate  Calendar,'  in  the  annals  of  that  public 
justice  which  chastised  their  faults. 

3.  The  long  controversy  with  the  infidels  assumed, 
in  the  course  of  it,  many  forms.  But  these  changes  of 
position,  on  the  part  of  the  defenders  of  Christianity, 
were  caused  by  the  changing  tactics  of  their  assailants, 

*  "  The  best  book,"  says  Burke,  "  that  ever  has  been  written  against 
these  people,  is  that  in  which  the  author  has  collected  in  a  body  the  whole  of 
the  infidel  code,  and  has  brought  their  writings  into  one  body,  to  cut  them 
all  off  together." — Speech  on  licUcf  of  Protestant  Di^scuters,  1773. 


Essay  II.]  EVIDENCES  OF  CHEISTIANITY.  Qfj 

who,  when  driven  from  one  point  of  attack,  immediate- 
ly occupied  a  new  one. 

The  necessity  for  an  English  apologetic  *  literature 
began  to  be  felt  even  before  the  Restoration,  and  is  at- 
tested by  such  works  as  Jeremy  Taylor's  '  Moral  De- 
monstration,' and  Hammond's  remarkable  little  tract 
on  the  '  Evidences  of  Religion.'  After  it,  still  more. 
Tlie  press,  indeed,  was  not  yet  free  to  the  infidels 
(though  Hobbs,  by  masking  his  attack  on  all  religion 
and  morality  under  the  form  of  a  defence  of  despotism, 
contrived  to  evade  its  restrictions) ;  but  it  is  plain,  from 
incidental  notices,  that  sceptical  objections  were  largely 
circulated  in  MS.  and  in  conversation.  Men  read,  in 
secret,  authors  whose  names  sound  strange  to  this  gen- 
eration— Averroes,  Jordanes  Brunus,  Cardan,  Pompo- 
natius,  Yanini ;  and  their  doubts,  denied  a  free  expres- 
sion, festered  into  grotesque  and  monstrous  forms  of 
atheism,  of  which  Smith,  and  More,  and  Cudworth 
occasionally  reveal  to  us  portentous  specimens.  Learn- 
ing, too,  was  beginning  to  suggest  literary  difficulties, 
of  which  we  have  indications  in  Isaac  Yossius  and  Sir 
John  Marsham. 

It  was  in  this  state  of  things  that  those  two  great 
works,  Cudworth's  '  Intellectual  System,'  and  Stilling- 
fleet's  '  Origines  Sacrse,'  f  were  published.  They  were 
certainly  very  far  from  being  popular  and  easy  defences 

*  It  has  been  supposed  that  our  early  Reformers,  conscious  of  the  weak- 
ness of  external  proofs,  rested  the  authority  of  Scripture  wholly  upon  its 
self-evidencinj^  light.  But  the  doctrine  of  the  self-evidencing  light  had  quite 
a  diflerent  origin.  The  schoolmen  had  erected  theology  into  a  science, 
properly  so  called,  which  required  principles  as  certain  as  those  of  natural 
.science.  They  could  not  hnd  such  a  certainty  in  moral  evidence,  and  there- 
fore had  recourse  to  supernatural  light.  The  Reformers  partook  in  their 
mistake  in  requiring  an  assent  out  of  proportion  to  the  evidence;  but  sub- 
stituted the  infallible  Scripture  as  its  object  for  the  infallible  Church.  The 
true  distinction  between  assent  and  adhesion  was  drawn  by  Hooker  in  his 
great  sermon  on  the  '  Faith  of  the  Elect,'  and,  after  him,  by  Jackson,  Works, 
vol.  iii.,  Oxford,  1841. 

t  Let  any  competent  person  read  the  chapters  on  Ancient  History  in  the 
first  book  of  the  *  Origines, 'and  the  account  of  the  laws  against  the  Christians 
in  b.  ii.  c.  9,  and  he  will  see  that  those  who  sneer  at  "that  great  work  are 
themselves  the  proper  objects  of  pity  or  contem])t.  Stillingfli'tt,  in  his  old 
age,  and  when  his  temper  had  been  spoiled  by  tlattery,  and  his  faculties 
decayed  by  years,  engaged  foolishly  in  a  controversy  with  Locke,  in  which 
he  did  not  appear  to  advantage.  Yet  he  singled  out  most  of  those  points 
which  later  metaphysicians  have  deemed  the  weak  points  in  Locke's  harness. 
3* 


58  AII5S  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  II 

of  religion,  but  tliey  were  not  intended  as  replies  to 
popular  attacks.  Tliey  were  tlie  weapons  in  a  war  of 
giants. 

"Non  jaculo,  neque  enim  jaciilo  vitam  ille  dedisset, 
Sed  magnum  stridens  coiitorta  Falarica  venit." 

Tliose  who  despise  tliem  have  probably  never  read,  and 
certainly  never  understood,  tliem. 

4.  The  point  of  attack  was  now  gradually  changed. 
Science  was  every  day  bringing  fresh  aids  to  religion. 
Before  the  arguments  of  Slore,  and  Cudworth,  and 
Green,  and  Ray,  and  Boyle,  and  Clarke,  the  position 
of  Atheism  was  generally  abandoned  as  untenable. 
The  divines  had  proved  to  their  opponents  that  there 
was  such  a  thing  as  natural  religion  ;  and  those  oppo- 
nents now  adopted  that  system  of  natural  religion, 
which  had  been  reasoned  out  for  them,  as  their  own ; 
declared  its  proofs  to  have  been  always  so  clear  and 
convincing  that  nothing  but  the  artifices  of  priestcraft 
could  have  obscured  them  ;  and  contended  that  revela- 
tion should  at  once  be  set  aside  as  a  su23erfluous  incum- 
brance of  its  perfection.'^  The  war-cry  now  Avas,  "  The 
sufficiency  of  natural  religion  !  "  The  points  in  Chris- 
tianity now  selected  for  attack  were  those  j^eculiar  to  it 
as  distinguished  from  natural  religion.  It  was  con- 
tended tliat  miracles  were  incredible,  or  utterly  insignifi- 
cant ;  that  God  could  not  give  a  particular  revelation  ; 
that  He  could  not  have  selected  a  chosen  people  ;  that 
lie  could  not  accept  a  vicarious  atonement ;  that  the 
Gospel  doctrine  of  eternal  rewards  and  2:)unishment3 
subverted  morality  by  making  it  mercenary,  6cc.  It 
was  such  objections  as  these  that  drew  forth  the  mas- 
terpieces of  Clarke,  and  Butler,'|'  and  Warburton.     In 

*  Sec  some  admirable  remarks  upon  the  latest  form  of  the  same  prejudice 
in  Dr.  Salmon's  •  Sermons  preached  in  Trinity  College,  Dublin,'  (Macmillan, 
1861),  pp.  1G0-1G5. 

t  I  have  seen  a  curious  criticism  upon  Butler's  style,  in  which  his  disuse 
ol' technical  terms  is  accounted  for  by  saying  that  he  was  essentially  a  Stoic, 
and  may  be  compared  with  "Epictetus,  Antoninus,  and  Plutarch,"  who 
moralized  in  the  language  of  common  life.  The  Stoics,  I  had  always  thought, 
were  rather  remarkable  for  the  use  of  technical  terms.  "  Ex  omnibus  Philo- 
sophis,"  says  Cicero,  "  Stoici  plurima  iiovaverunt.  Zeno  quoque,  eorum 
prmccps,  non  tam  rcrum  inventor  fuit  quani  novorum  verborum." — De 
Finihus,  lib.  iii.  c.  2.    And  most  persons  who  have  looked  into  Antoninus 


Essay  II.]  EVIDENCES  OF  CHEISTIANITT.  59 

their  hands  the  cause  of  religion  Avas  safe  ;  but,  in  its 
management  by  less  sagacious  writers,  one  disastrous 
mistake  was  committed,  the  influence  of  which  was  long 
felt  to  the  injury  of  the  Church. 

In  the  early  stage  of  the  controversy  it  was  the  infi- 
dels wlio  maintained  (with  Hobbes  and  Spinoza)  the 
selfish  system  of  morals,  and  the  defenders  of  religion 
who  asserted  the  nobler  doctrine  that  virtue  was  an 
end  in  itself.  So  much,  indeed,  was  this  the  case,  that 
hardly  anything  excited  more  the  general  outcry 
against  Locke's  '  Essay '  than  the  supposition  that  his 
denial  of  innate  ideas  destroyed  the  proper  foundation 
of  ethics.  But,  in  time,  Locke  was  discovered  to  have 
been  a  Christian  ;  and  the  Platonic  theory  of  virtue 
was  turned  by  Shaftesbury  (his  somewhat  ungenerous 
pupil)  into  a  support  of  naturalism,  and  an  engine  for 
assailing  Christianity.  This  circumstance  unhappily 
prejudiced,  some  of  the  leading  divines  against  even 
what  w^as  soundest  in  Shaftesbury's  writings.  They 
saw  an  accidental  gain,  in  proving  the  necessity  of  rev- 
elation to  assure  man  that  the  practice  of  virtue  was, 
under  all  circumstances,  his  dearest  interest,  and  they 
caught  at  it  too  eagerly.  Thus  "  Hamlet  and  Laertes 
changed  rapiers,"  and  some  of  the  champions  of  Truth 
disgraced  themselves  by  using  the  poisoned  weapon 
which  they  had  wrested  from  the  maintainors  of  error. 

But,  though  some  oversights  were  committed  in  the 
conduct  of  the  war,  the  issue  of  the  conflict  was  not,  on 
the  whole,  doubtfuL  And  now,  again,  the  position  had 
to  be  altered  to  meet  a  new  assault.  Lord  Bolingbroke 
gave  the  signal  by  complaining  that  "  divines  had  taken 
much  silly  pains  to  establish  mystery  on  metaphysics, 
revelation  on  philosophy,  and  matters  of  fact  on  ab- 
stract reasoning.  Eeligion,"  he  says  truly — "  such  as 
the  Christian,  which  appeals  to  facts — must  be  proved 
as  all  other  facts  that  pass  for  authentic  are  proved. 

M'ill  agree  with  his  editor  that,  so  far  from  takinc;  his  diction  from  common 
life,  "utitur  vocibus  phme  suis,  quas  raro  apud  alios  autorcs  invcnias."  As 
for  Plutarch,  one  is  surprised  to  hear  that  he  was  a  Stoic.  He  is  commonly 
Bupposed  to  have  written  some  rather  tniart  treatises  against  the  Stoics. 


QQ  AIDS   TO  FAITH.  [Essay  IL 

If  tliej  arc  tlins  proved,  the  religion  will  prevail  with- 
out the  assistance  of  so  mnch  profound  reasoning.* 

To  the  proof  of  religion,  then,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
the  Christian  divines  addressed  themselves :  and  as 
the  points  to  be  considered  in  this  view  were  the  credi- 
bility of  tlie  prime  witnesses  to  the  miracnlous  facts  of 
Christianity,  and  the  trustworthiness  of  the  tradition  by 
which  their  testimony  has  been  delivered  down  to  us, 
it  was  these  whicli  were  the  chief  subjects  of  the  apolo- 
getic literature  which  may  be  said  to  terminate  in  the 
works  of  Lardnerf  and  Paley. 

But  though  the  defenders  of  Christianity  had  been 
ex]3ressly  challenged  to  this  field  of  ai-gument,  it  was 
one  into  w^hich  their  antagonists  showed  little  serious 
disposition  to  follow  them.  Certainly  Lord  Eoling- 
broke's  own  performances,  in  his  '  Eemarks  on  the 
Canon  of  Scripture,'  and  the  historical  speculations 
which  are  scattered  in  his  '  Fragments,'  were  not  very 
formidable  to  the  faith.  Gradually  the  attack  upon 
revealed  religion  fell  into  the  hands  of  persons  too  ig- 
norant and  too  manifestly  unscrupulous  to  produce 
nmch  effect  upon  the  educated  part  of  the  public. 
Such  writers  as  Eurgli  and  Paine  might  do  mischief 
among  the  lower  classes ;  but  they  can  hardly  fill  a 
place  In  any  literary  history. 

Two  really  illustrious  names  do,  indeed,  close  the 
catalogue  of  the  infidels  of  the  last  century — Hume  and 
Gibbon. :j:  But  neither  appeared  as  an  ojien  assailant  of 
Christianity,  and  neither  owes  his  chief  fame,  to  those 

*  See  Warbnrton's  'Doctrine  of  Grace.' 

t  "I  should  be  ungrateful,"  says  Mr.  Wcstcott,  "not  lo  bear  witness  to 
the  accuracy  and  fulness  of  Lardncr's  '  Credibility  ; '  for,  however  imperfect 
it  mav  be  in  the  view  which  it  gives  of  the  earliest  period  of  Christian  litera- 
ture, it  is,  unless  I  am  mistaken,  more  complete  and  trustworthy  than  any 
work  which  has  been  written  since  on  the  same  subject."— 7//dYo/;y  of  the 
Canon,  p.  0. 

X  In  reference  to  the  supposed  difGcultics  and  discouragements  under 
which  infidels  labour,  it  is  worth  observing  that  both  Hume  and  Gibbon 
held  lucrative  situations  under  Government.  At  an  earlier  period  it  Avas 
Wali)ole's  policy  to  patronize  some  of  the  most  rabid  and  indecent  assailants 
of  religion;  and,  until  the  intidels  had  been  thoroughly  refuted  by  the 
weapoi7s  both  of  wit  and  argument,  the  most  open  avowal  of  their  opinions 
was  rather  a  recommendation  to  what  was  called  "  polite  society."  A  strong 
rcaclion  in  the  tone  of  popular  literature  began  with  Steele  and  Addison. 


Essay  II.]  EVIDENCES  OF  CIIRISTLiNITY  gj 

parts  of  liis  writings  in  wliicli  Christianity  was  assailed. 
After  tliem  infidelity  in  England  appeared  to  have 
sheathed  its  sword,  furled  its  banner,  and  retired  from 
the  lield. 

5.  But  Vvhat,  meanwhile,  was  the  internal  condition 
of  the  Church  ?  It  was  (to  recur  to  a  former  compari- 
son) too  much  like  an  estate  after  the  decision  of  a  long- 
suit  in  Chancery  to  settle  a  litigated  title.  The  contro- 
versy with  the  infidels  had  not  been  the  only  one  of 
that  busy  century.  It  was  an  age  of  a  thousand  con- 
troversies. There  was  the  great  JS^onjuring  Controver- 
sy, in  which  political  rancour  was  still  more  embittered 
by  the  gall  of  the  odium  theologicum.  There  was  the 
great  Bangorian  Controversy,  growing  ont  of  the  for- 
mer, and  draining  into  it  all  the  poisoned  dregs  of  its 
predecessor.  There  was  the  great  Convocation  Contro- 
versy, which  changed  comitry  parsons  into  clerical 
Ilampdens,  and  ranged  Pligli  Church  divines  in  strange 
antagonism  against  the  royal  supremacy.  There  was 
the  great  Trinitarian  Controversy,  begun  by  Clarke  and 
Waterland,  and  continued  by  a  host  of  inferior  writers, 
till  the  public  grew  weary  of  the  very  thought  of  Pa- 
tristic literature."^'  These  and  countless  minor  ones  dis- 
tracted the  attention  of  churchmen  from  observing  the 
spiritual  destitution  that  was  spreading  widely  around 
them  amidst  all  this  polemical  activity.  The  brilliant 
services  of  the  tongue  and  pen  in  defending  Christian- 
ity, or  orthodoxy,  or  even  faction,  eclipsed  the  less 
showy,  but  not  less  real,  and  far  more  generally  requi- 
site, usefulness  of  the  pastoral  care,  in  its  ordinary 
forms  of  teaching  and  admonition.  Prelates  forsook 
their  dioceses  for  the  nobler  work  of  writing  controver- 
sy, or  asserting  the  political  interests  of  their  order. 
Discipline  became  relaxed;  parishes  were  neglected; 
and  at  the  end  of  the  century  the  Cliurch  found  itself 
surrounded  with  a  swarming  population,  and  no  ade- 

*  Warburton  made  an  cflbrt,  in  the  preface  to  his  'Julian,'  to  restore  the 
Fathers  to  some  credit,  and  to  put  their  character  in  a  favourable  light:  and, 
in  return,  be  has  been  charged  with  "  disdain  and  ignorance  of  Catholic 
theology." 


52  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essat  II. 

qiiate  machinery  provided  for  dealing  with  this  mass 
of  ignorance. 

It  is  not  true,  I  think,  that  the  bulk  of  the  lower 
orders  had  been  leavened  with  infidelity/'^  Their  hea- 
thenism was  negative,  not  positive ;  they  had  been 
suifered  to  grow  up  in  gross  ignorance  of  religion  :  and 
it  was  during  the  prevalence  of  such  evils  that  the  evan- 
gelical reaction — commencing  with  the  Methodist  move- 
ment— began. 

6.  But  it  would  be  an  error,  I  apprehend,  to  sup- 
pose that  it  was  Whitfield  and  the  "Wesley s  who  07'igi- 
nated  a  Reformation.  Long  before  them  it  appears 
manifest  that  a  healthy  reaction  had  set  in.  As  the 
old  panic  dread  of  fanaticism  abated  on  the  one  hand, 
and  the  necessities  of  continual  controversy  became  less 
on  the  other,  preachers  insisted  more  and  more  on  the 
peculiarities  of  the  Christian  faith  as  the  springs  and 
motives  of  Gospel  obedience.  Energetic  efforts  were 
made  to  build  new  churches  and  establish  schools 
throughout  the  country  :  and  (what  is  always  a  hope- 
ful sign)  some  zeal  began  to  be  felt  for  foreign  missions, 
and  some  sense  of  responsibility  for  the  religious  state 
of  our  colonies.  A  change  for  the  better  was  going  on. 
The  case  of  Whitfield  and  the  Wesley s  was  that  of  other 
energetic  men  whose  names  figure  in  history  as  the 
originators  of  mighty  changes.  They  fling  themselves 
into  a  great  movement  before  it  has  become  conspicu- 
ous to  the  vulgar  eye  :  they  put  themselves  at  its  head ; 
they  carry  it  on  to  extravagance,  and  thus  accelerate 
and  extend  an  impulse  which  they  partially  misdirect, 
and  may  ultimately  sj)oil  forever. 

The  Methodists,  then,  had  not  to  convert  the  English 
population  to  a  helief  in  Christianity  ;  but  they  had  to 
awaken  a  sense  of  the  Christian  religion  in  men  who 
had  been  so  long  thinking  of  it  as  a  thing  to  be  i^roved 

*  Even  that  of  the  upper  Avas  greatly  overrated  :  "  The  truth  of  the  case," 
says  Ilurd,  a  cool  observer,  *'  is  no  more  than  this.  A  few  fashionable  men 
make  a  noise  in  the  world ;  and  this  clamour  being  echoed  on  all  sides  from 
the  shallow  circles  of  their  admirers,  misleads  the  unwary  into  an  opinion 
that  the  irreligious  spirit  is  universal  and  uncontrollable." — See  the  whole 
\)assage,  'Mentions  on  Prophecy^  sermon  xii.,  concUmon. 


Essay  II.]  EVIDENCES  OF  CIIEISTIANITY.  q3 

that  tliey  had  forgotten  that  it  was  also  a  thing  to  be 
felt  and  acted  on  ;  and  they  had  to  teach  even  the  ele- 
ments of  that  religion  to  vast  numbers  of  an  outlying 
mass  beyond  the  range  of  ordinary  instruction.  This 
"was  the  appropriate  work  to  which  the  circumstances 
of  the  times  really  called  them.  But,  besides  the  pres- 
sure of  these  real  wants,  there  were  other  craviugs  of 
the  popular  mind  demanding  satisfaction.  There  was 
(what  is  to  be  found  in  every  generation)  the  great  herd 
of  superficial  minds  who  always  require  the  stimulus 
of  something  new  ;  who  throw  the  blame  of  their  own 
shallowness  upon  their  teachers,  and  are  always  asking 
for  something  more  "  deep  and  earnest  and  thorough- 
going," or  "  more  rational  and  suited  to  the  age,"  than 
the  current  theology,  whatever  it  may  be.  This  is  the 
common  sequacious  mob  of  "  novarum  rerum  avidi," 
who  are  drawn,  like  insects,  by  the  loudest  noise  and 
the  greatest  glare.  This  movable,  and  indeed  restless 
multitude,  swells  the  decuman  wave  of  every  great 
movement,  and  retires  with  its  ebb,  only  to  return  again 
on  the  crest  of  its  successor.  Kor  can  it  be  reasonably 
doubted  that  many  of  those  amiable  but  weak  persons 
who  have  latterly  been  roving  over  England  in  the  garb 
of  Passionists  and  Oratorians  would  have  been,  in  the 
days  of  Whitfield's  popularity,  preaching  rank  Method- 
ism on  Kennington  Common,  amidst  a  shower  of  mud 
and  turnip-tops. 

There  Avas,  then,  in  the  first  place,  the  call  for  some- 
thing new.  But  there  was  also  the  call  for  something 
fanatical.  The  terrible  experience  of  the  seventeenth 
century  had  left  a  deep  impression  on  the  beginning  of 
the  eighteenth,  of  dread  and  bitter  scorn  of  fanaticism. 
In  the  wild  tumult  of  the  Commonwealth  the  nation 
had  been,  as  it  were,  drunk  with  religious  enthusiasm  ; 
and,  in  shame  and  grief  at  the  remembrance  of  that 
horrible  debauch  and  all  its  crimes,  they  had  hastily 
vowed  a  total  abstinence  from  those  feelings  which 
Hartley  describes  under  the  odd  but  convenient  term 
Theopathy.  But  a  Avild  career  of  another  kind  of 
drunkenness  had  done  much  to  efiace  that  impression 


(34  AIDS  TO  FAITIL  [Essay  II. 

before  tlie  close  of  that  centuiy  ;  and  the  hypocrisy  of 
the  Puritans  had  been  thrown  into  the  shade  by  the 
brazen  profligacy  of  the  race  who  succeeded  them. 
Enthusiasm  was  again  eagerly  demanding  its  turn  for 
gratification. 

7.  Furtliermore,  there  was  a  want  that  has  been 
less  often  remarked  as  one  of  the  causes  of  Methodism 
— the  want  of  what  may  be  called  a  freer  Church-ac- 
tivity.  The  busy,  bustling  democratic  spirit  of  nltra- 
Protestantism  had  made  itself  so  hateful  in  the  previous 
generation,  that,  within  the  Church,  laymen  shrank 
from  meddling.  The  synodical  assemblies  of  the  clergy 
had  only  spasmodic  fits  of  action,  in  which  they  either 
tore  themselves,  or  made  violent  assaults  on  others. 
Their  time  and  energies  were  wasted  in  disputes  be- 
tween the  two  Houses,  disputes  with  the  Crown,  dis- 
putes with  obnoxious  brethren ; — till,  at  last,  tlieir 
action  became  so  manifestly  scandalous  that  the  ^linis- 
ter  was  able  to  silence  them  entirely,  to  the  general 
satisfaction  of'  a  public  wdio  had  ceased  to  be  enter- 
tained by  their  quarrels.""'  Thus  they  no  longer  broke 
the  dull  monotony  of  quiet  which  it  was  the  policy  of 
Walpole  to  maintain  per  fas  aid  nefas. 

"  The  Convocation  gaped,  but  could  not  speak." 
Outside  the  Church,  dissent  had  been  crushed  by 
the  rigorous  laws  of  Charles  11. ,  and  the  general  disgust 
and  contempt  of  the  nation,  so  effectually,  that  it  could 
not  recover  when  the  Toleration  came.  The  Dissenting 
teachers  w^ere  generally  either  liard,  dry,  and  narrow 
Calvinistical  divines ;  or  men  of  enlarged  and  liberal 
sentiments,  disgusted  with  their  own  communion,  and 
no  longer  retaining  the  old  prejudices  against  surplices 
and  rochettes,  but  kept  from  conformity,  partly  by  he- 
reditary pride,  and  partly  by  dislike  to  the  (loctrlnal 
fetters  of  subscription  to  the  Articles  and  Liturgy.f 

*  Like  the  old  comedy — 

"  Tnrpitcr  oLticuit,  Bublato  jure  nooondi." 

t  Sec  the  notices  of  negotiations  for  a  comprehension  in  Doddridp;e's  Cor- 
respondence, iind  compare  the  huic;na.e;o  of  Ilarewood :  "  Our  separation  is 
not  founded  in  vestments  and  surplices,  in  liturgies,  crosses,  and  genu- 
flexions, in  godfathers,  godmotliers,  and  rotatory  motions, — it  is  Athanasiua 
who  drives  us  from  your  altars." — Five  Dissertations  (1772),  p.  03. 


Essay  II.]  EVIDENCES  OF  CIIKISTIAXITY  g5 

How  far  an  ultra-liberalism  had  leavened  tlie  Dissent- 
ing teachers  became  manifest  when  the  Arian  move- 
ment carried,  at  one  sweep,  the  wliole  body  of  the 
English  Presbyterians,  and  a  great  part  of  the  Irish, 
into  a  heresy  most  remote  from  the  traditions  of  their 
forefathers. 

Tims,  within  the  Chnrch  and  withont,  there  was  a 
demand  beginning  to  be  felt  for  some  free  and  stirring 
ecclesiastical  activity ;  the  thonght  of  wliich  men  had 
ceased  to  associate  with  any  of  the  old  organizations. 

8.  In  such  a  state  of  predisposition,  Whitlield  and 
the  Wcsleys  began  their  work  by  preaching  the  !N"ew 
BmTii.  The  term  had  doubtless  a  sound  and  valuable 
meaning.  But,  in  that  sense  it  meant,  not  the  produc- 
tion of  a  new  'beliefs  but  of  a  new  seiue  of  the  reality 
and  importance  of  momentous  truths  involved  in  what 
had  been  already  assented  to. 

These  two  things  are  frequently  confounded  by 
careless  thinkers ;  but,  in  reality,  they  are  quite  dif- 
ferent :  and  the.  clifi'erence  is  observable,  not  only  in 
religious,  but  in  ethical  matters,  and  in  the  affairs  of 
common  life.  In  all  practical  matters,  mere  belief,  or 
acquiescence,  is  one  thing ;  and  that  belief,  quickened 
into  a  sense  of  reality,  and  touching  all  the  springs  of 
action,  is  another :  and,  in  all  practical  matters,  the 
most  mischievous  consequences  may  result  from  con- 
founding together  such  different  things.  It  would  be 
a  great  mistake  to  fancy  that  Faith  had  been  produced 
as  soon  as  ever  the  mind  had  been  brought  to  recognize 
the  connection  of  a  conclusion  with  unimpeachable  pre- 
misses :  and  it  would  be  a  great  mistake,  on  the  other 
liand,  to  suppose  that  all  processes  of  reasoning  might 
be  discarded,  and  nothing  consulted  or  addressed  but 
the  fancy  and  tlie  emotions.  "  Going  over  the  theory 
of  virtue  "  may  indeed,  as  Butler  has  pointed  out,  not 
only  fail  to  make  a  man  practically  moral,  but  tend  to 
deaden  the  sense  of  moral  truths,  by  weakening  their 
practical,  as  it  shows  their  rational,  associations.  But 
we  shoidd  not  therefore  listen  to  a  hotheaded  refomier 
like  Kousseau,  who  would  urge  us  to  cast  aside  all 


QQ  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  II. 

tlieory  and  reasoning'  in  morals,  and  attend  to  nothing 
"but  tiie  immediate  dictates  of  tlie  heart. 

Into  such  confusions  and  mistakes,  however,  the 
leaders  of  the  Evangelical  movement  were  rapidly  be- 
guiled by  their  own  sndden  and  widely-spread  snccess. 
They  tanght  (and  tanglit  rightly)  that  we  nnist  not  only 
believe,  but  feel,  before  we  can  act,  as  Christians.  In 
recalling  attention  to  the  truth  that  the  Gospel  is  a  reve- 
lation of  God's  love  to  sinners,  designed  to  produce 
corresponding  affections  in  our  hearts — that  the  faith 
of  Christ  is  a  faith  that  works  through  love,  they  did 
valuable  service, "which  should  never  be  dissembled  or 
forgotten.  Eut  unhappily  they  went  on  to  teach  that 
the  belief  and  the  action  were  to  be  grounded  upon  the 
feelings,  considered  as  the  immediate  and  sensible  opera- 
tion of  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  the  human  mind. 

Kow  such  a  preposterous  mistake  as  this  could 
hardly  have  been  possible  for  the  general  acquiescence 
of  the  national  mind  in  the  truth  of  the  Christian  relig- 
ion. For  I  am  persuaded  that  none  except  the  very 
wildest  fanatics  (and  tl.ie  leaders  of  whom  I  speak  were 
certainly  not  mere  wild  fanatics)  do  really  thus  wholly 
ground  their  faith  upon  an  imaginary  inspiration. 
There  is,  in  almost  all  cases,  a  secret  tacit  reference  in 
the  bottom  of  the  heart  to  some  fixed  external  standard 
by  w^hich  the  extravagances  of  iancy  and  feeling  are 
moderated  and  kept  in  check.  The  Methodists  could 
assume  the  general  truth  of  Christianity  as  ^iioshdainm. 
They  could  assume  that  there  was  a  Holy  Spirit ;  they 
couid  assume  the  necessary  coincidence  of  His  teaching 
in  the  heart  with  His  teaching  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  ; 
and  they  could  try  the  former  by  the  latter.  In  the 
first  fervours  of  their  preaching  they  plainly  were 
tempted  to  appeal  to  the  agitations  which  it  produced 
in  the  minds  and  bodies  of  their  converts  as  a  sort  of 
miraculous  attestation  of  its  truth ;  but  experience 
soon  convinced  the  shrewder  of  them  that  such  evi- 
dence could  not  be  relied  upon,  and  that  the  true  ap- 
peal must  be  made  elsewhere.  But  the  logical  vicioiis- 
ncss  of  the  circle  in  which  the  mind  moves  in  such 


Essay  II.]  EVIDENCES  OF   CIIEISTIANITY.  q*] 

cases  can  only  be  hidden  from  it  wlien  the  external 
authority  on  which  it  falls  back  is  thought  of  as  some- 
thing unquestioned  and  nnquestionable.  It  is  only  in 
reference  to  heretics,  who  hold  in  common  with  himself 
the  inspiration  of  Scripture,  that  the  Homanist  can  be 
guilty  of  the  absurdity  of  proving  his  Church  by  the 
Scriptures,  and  the  Scriptures  by  his  Church.  When 
dealing  with  the  infidel,  he  must  proceed,  just  as  other 
Christians  proceed,  by  the  way  of  moral  evidence  ;  and 
from  the  '  Summa  contra  Gentiles '  of  Aquinas  down 
to  the  '  Principia '  of  Abbe  Hooke,  this  is  the  way  in 
which  Roman  Catholic  as  well  as  Protestant  apologists 
have  jDroceeded  in  the  argument  against  infidelity.  So, 
also,  when  one  enthusiast  meets  another  of  opposite 
sentiments,  but  with  persuasions  as  strong,  feelings  as 
lively,  satisfaction  as  complete,  and  inward  peace  as 
perfect  as  his  own,  each  is  driven  to  "  try  the  spirit " 
of  his  antagonist  by  some  external  test,  forgetting  that, 
upon  his  own  principles,  that  standard  itself  was  only 
known  by  the  inward  discernment  which  it  is  now  em- 
ployed to  control.  Where  such  a  standard  is  unhesi- 
tatingly admitted  by  both,  the  fallacy  may  be  long 
concealed ;  but  as  soon  as  its  authority  comes  to  be 
generally  and  openly  questioned,  the  mistake  becomes 
patent,  and  can  only  be  corrected  by  abandoning  the 
false  principle  which  has  produced  the  mischief. 

One  circumstance  which  contributed  to  favour  the 
Methodistic  exaggerations  upon  tliis  subject  was,  that 
the  doctrine  of  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  had 
been  one  comparatively  reserved  in  the  preaching  of 
the  preceding  half-century.  I  do  not  mean  that  it 
was  denied,  or  even  wholly  omitted.  Such  strong 
and  wholesale  charcres  a£]cainst  the  teach  ins:  of  the 
Church  at  that  period  are  often  made ;  but  they  are 
wholly  without  foundation.  But  when  referred  to  in 
more  than  a  general  way,  the  reference  was  usually  for 
the  purpose  of  guarding  against  fanatical  extravagance 
— for  correcting  the  abuse  rather  than  illustrating  the 
use  of  that  doctrine  ;  for  showing  rather  what  was  not, 
than  what  was  implied  in  it. 


68  AIDS  TO  FAlTir.  [Essay  IL 

It  was  not  strange,  therefore,  if,  in  tlieir  ardour  to 
develop  fully,  on  its  positive  side,  tliis  cardinal  Chris- 
tian doctrine  of  a  free  and  intimate  communion  between 
God  in  Christ  and  the  human  soul,  the  evangelical 
leaders  were  tempted  to  overstep  the  Loimds  of  so- 
briety ;  and  to  forget  that  the  Holy  Spint  is  given  not 
to  supersede,  or  supply  the  place  of  any  of  our  natural 
faculties,  but  to  help  their  infirmity,  and  restore  them 
to  that  just  balance  and  due  subordination — that  proper 
and  healthful  exercise — which  have  been  disturbed  by 
sin.  From  Him,  indeed,  "  all  holy  desires,  all  good 
counsels,  and  all  just  works  do  proceed  ;  "  but  we  must 
first  determine  that  our  desires  are  holy,  our  counsels 
good,  and  our  works  just,  before  we  can,  without  intol- 
erable rashness,  attribute  them  to  that  sacred  influence ; 
and  we  cannot  detemine  that  by  the  mere  strength  of 
our  persuasions,  or  the  vividness  of  our  fancies,  or  the 
depth  and  earnestness  of  our  feelings,  without  opening 
a  way  for  every  wild  extravagance  that  can  support 
itself  on  strong  persuasion,  vivid  fancy,  and  deep  and 
earnest  feeling. 

B:'t,  in  the  flush  and  fervour  of  their  triumph, 
and  the  general  silence  of  the  advocates  of  infidelity, 
the  evangelical  leaders  went  on  securely — comparing 
proudly  their  own  achievements  with  the  performances 
of  their  predecessors — and  declaring  that  they  needed 
no  other  evidences  than  the  manifest  adaptation  of  their 
doctrine  to  the  wants  of  mankind,  and  its  living  power, 
when  received,  to  regenerate  a  sinful  race. 

9.  The  natural  consequence  of  all  this  was  an  exten- 
sive decay  of  theological  learning.  A  few  leading  doc- 
trines were,  for  them,  the  essence  of  the  Gospel,  and 
their  preaching,  in  too  many  cases,  became  little  more 
than  a  monotonous  repetition  of  those  doctrines.  For 
such  a  ministry  neither  deep  research  nor  accurate 
til  inking  was  at  all  necessary.  On  the  contrary,  it  was 
manifest  that,  in  order  to  make  a  great  part  of  the 
Bible  available  for  the  direct  teaching  of  the  few  sub- 
jects to  which  they  confined  themselves,  it  was  needful 
to  violate  all  rules  of  sober  criticism,  and  confound  the 


Essay  II.]  EVIDENCES  OF  CUlilSTIANlTY.  qq 

Old  Testament  with  the  New  by  an  arbitrary  spiritual' 
isinrj  interpretation  to  which  reason  could  set  no  limits. 
The  practical  result  of  such  a  course  was  an  extensive, 
though  vague,  popular  impression  that  the  test  of  a  cor- 
rect exposition  of  Scripture  was  the  amount  of  comfort 
or  edification  that  the  hearer  or  reader  sensibly  derived 
from  it.  The  pious  feelings  which  a  text,  as  he  under- 
stood it,  produced  in  his  mind  were  unhesitatingly  re- 
garded as  the  consequence  of  the  Spirit's  teaching 
through  .the  Word.  Human  agency,  it  was  indeed 
acknowledged,  was  necessary  to  teach  a  man  to  read  ; 
and  human  agency  was  needful  to  supply  the  unlearned 
with  translations  of  the  Bible ;  but,  beyond  this,  very 
little  was  allowed  to  any  other  help  than  prayer,  for* 
the  profitable  study  of  the  Scripture. 

The  real  tendency,  it  is  evident,  of  such  opinions  is 
not  to  exalt  the  authority  of  the  Word  of  God,  but  to 
destroy  it.  The  mind  of  the  reader  in  such  a  process 
of  study,  instead  of  receiving  instruction  from  the  Scrip- 
ture, imports  a  meaning  into  it.  We  have,  not  an  Exe- 
gesis^ but  an  Isegesis.  A  certain  system  of  doctrine  is 
first  accepted,  not  -upon  the  autliority  of  propounders 
accredited  by  external  evidence,  but  for  the  sake  of  the 
doctrine  itself:  the  Scripture  becomes  valuable  only  as 
the  vehicle  of  this  doctrine,  and  valuable  in  proportion 
as  it  can  be  made  the  vehicle  of  this  doctrine,  and  the 
means  of  exciting  a  certain  class  of  pious  sentiments  : 
and,  as  it  is  soon  discovered  that  what  the  very  ele- 
ments of  criticism  would  detect  as  palpable  misinter- 
pretations or  mistranslations  of  the  sacred  text  may  be 
the  most  cherished  vehicles  of  such  doctrine,  and  pow- 
erful exciters  of  such  feelings,  criticism  is  laid  aside, 
and  the  Bible  becomes  a  kind  of  cipher,  to  be  read  not 
by  reason  but  by  fancy. 

10.  I  am  tracing  here  the  ultimate  development  of 
false  principles  when  left  unchecked  to  their  full  oper- 
ation. But,  even  in  cases  where  no  such  extravagance 
was  possible,  we  can  perceive  through  a  great  part  of 
the  religious  writings  of  the  last  generation  a  prevailing- 
tendency  to  forget  the  aspect  of  Fact^  and  view  only 


tjQ  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  IL 

the  aspect  of  Doctrine  in  contemplating  the  truths  of 
Christianity.  Indeed,  if  we  steadily  retain  in  our  minds 
the  historical  view  of  Christianity  which  is  presented 
in  the  New  Testament,  and  the  primitive  creeds,  as  a 
religion  of  Facts,  it  will  be  hard  to  grasp  Mr.  Cole- 
ridge's dictum  as  even  a  comprehensible  utterance.  It 
will  immediately  strike  us  as  hardly  intelligible  to 
say,  that  the  best  way  to  convince  a  man  that  Jesus 
Christ  was  "  conceived  by  the  Holy  Ghost ;  born  of  the 
Yirgin  Mary  ;  suffered  under  Pontius  Pilate  ;  was  cru- 
cified, dead,  and  buried  ;  and  the  third  day  rose  again 
from  the  dead;"  is  to  make  him  sensible  of  a  strong 
wish  that  these  facts  should  have  taken  place.  It  would 
at  once  become  plain  that  the  religion  which  was  to  be 
proved  by  such  a  process  must  be  something  widely 
different  from  an  historical  religion. 

11.  While  such  causes  as  I  have  endeavoured  to  in- 
dicate were  in  England  loosing  men's  hold  upon  the 
historical  element  in  Christianity,  other  influences  were 
operating  at  a  greater  distance  towards  the  same  result. 
The  literature  of  Germany  is  eminently  speculative  and 
metaphysical.  There  the  Governments  have  been  ac- 
customed to  forbid,  as  dangerous  to  the  public  peace, 
the  free  discussion  of  those  concrete  matters  relating  to 
Church  and  State  on  which  the  popular  mind  wdth  us 
is  kept  continually  interested,  and  often  agitated.  The 
only  scope  for  the  activity  of  the  human  intellect  in 
dealing  with  morals,  religion,  and  politics,  is  in  those 
higli  generalities  where  vulgar  minds  are  unable  to 
follow  it.  Literary  men  converse  with,  and  write  for, 
literary  men,  and  feel  no  necessity  to  translate  their 
thoughts  into  the  common  working-day  language  of 
ordinary  life.  AYithin  the  esoteric  circle,  one  dialect 
is  spoken  ;  without  it,  another :  and  thus  speculation  is 
unchecked  by  that  constant  reference  to  the  common 
sense  of  mankind  which  in  freer  countries  curbs  its  ex- 
travagance. 

Tiiese  two  circumstances — the  encouragement  of  un- 
limited speculation  within  bounds  remote  from  vulgar 
apprehension,  and  the  repression  of  everything  directly 


Essay  II.]  EVIDENCES  OF  CHRISTIANITY.  /^j 

tending  to  agitate  the  mass  of  the  people,  or  shake  the 
institutions  of  the  country — gave  its  peculiar  character 
to  German  infidelity.  The  problem  to  be  solved  was, 
the  substitution  of  metaphysical  Pantheism  for  revealed 
religion,  combined  with  a  retaining  of  the  structure  and 
ordinances  of  the  Church,  together  witli  the  language 
of  the  Scripture  and  the  Creeds,  accommodated  to  the 
requirements  of  such  metaphysics.  The  result  has 
been  truly  described  as  a  system  which,  "concealing 
scepticism  under  faith,  using  much  circumlocution  to 
reach  its  object,  dwelling  on  the  imagination,  on  poetry, 
on  spirituality,  transfigured  w^hat  it  threw  into  the 
shade,  built  up  wdiat  it  destroyed,  and  affirmed  in 
words  what  in  effect  it  denied."  It  was  intended  for  a 
kind  of  Euthanasia  of  Christianity.  Revelation  was 
to  die  out,  not  amidst  the  insults  of  coarse  assailants, 
but  the  compliments  and  tender  regret  of  friends,  and 
to  leave  behind  it  an  honoured  name  and  a  conspicuous 
monument.  God  was  to  be  merged  in  the  Soul  of  the 
Universe:  Christ  in  the  Ideal  of  Humanity:  the  Incar- 
nation in  the  union  of  the  higher  and  lower  principles 
of  human  nature  ;  and  the  Atonement  in  the  reconcilia- 
tion of  those  principles  through  struggle  and  suffering. 
For  the  successful  carrying  out  of  such  an  enterprise, 
it  was  necessary  to  expel  the  miraculous  from  the  docu- 
ments of  Christianity,  without  charging  the  authors  of 
them  with  fraud  or  deliberate  imposture :  and  this  was 
attempted  in  two  ways.  The  earlier  project  was  to 
resolve  the  supposed  miracles  into  a  series  of  odd  nat- 
ural events,  sometimes  mistaken  for  supernatural  by 
the  excited  fancies  of  the  spectators.  The  later  method 
proposed  to  turn  almost  the  wdiole  narrative,  natural 
and  supernatural,  into  a  set  of  symbolical  legends 
embodying  the  idea  of  the  Jewish  Messiah  as  modified 
by  the  necessity  of  adapting  it  to  Jesus  of  Xazareth. 
Each  of  these — the  naturalistic  and  the  mythical  theory 
— promised  well  at  first;  but  each  was  soon  found  to 
labour  under  insuperable  difficulties.  Common  sense 
revolted  at  last,  even  in  the  studies  of  German  profes- 
sors, against  tlie  clumsily  elaborate   explanations  by 


^2  AIDS  TO   FAITH.  [Essay  XL 

which  miracles  were  converted  into  natural  events. 
Afresh  hypothesis  had  to  be  made  for  each  occurrence, 
and  it  was  at  last  perceived  that  such  a  multitude  of 
strange  natural  j^henomena,  crowded  into  the  narrative 
of  a  few  years,  and  gratuitously  assumed  for  the  mere 
purpose  of  evading  the  obvious  meaning  of  the  story, 
were  really  far  more  improbable  than  miracles  them- 
selves. On  the  other  hand,  the  external  evidence  car- 
ried back  the  date  of  the  sacred  writings  to  an  age 
when  the  true  history  of  Jesus  was  so  recent  as  to  make 
it  incredible  that  it  should  have  been  wholly  smotliered 
then  by  legends  of  a  mere  romantic  character ; "  while 
the  gravity,  consistency,  and  perfect  quietness  of  the 
style  of  those  writings  themselves  made  the  attempt  to 
turn  them  into  mythical  legends  a  task  everywhere 
difficult  in  detail,  and,  in  some  cases,  even  ludicrously 
hopeless.  Hence,  to  account  for  the  historical  phenom- 
ena of  Christianity  is  still  really  an  unsolved  problem 
among  German  unbelievers.  The  plain  direct  account 
— that  Jesus  was  the  Son  of  God ;  that  He  died,  and 
rose  again  ;  and  sent  His  Holy  Spirit  to  plant  His 
Church  in  the  world — is  set  aside  by  an  a  ])riori  pre- 
sumption against  all  miracles.  But  the  historical  evi- 
dence, the  Books  themselves^  still  remains  a  "  stone  of 
stumbling,  and  rock  of  offence,"  against  which  liypothe- 
sis  after  hypothesis  is  dashed  to  pieces. 

The  irreligious  principles  which  thus,  for  a  long  time, 
infected  the  critical  and  philosophic  and  theological 
literature  of  the  Continent,  made  it  odious  in  England ; 
and  the  policy  at  first  acted  on  was  to  endeavour  to  ex- 
clude it  altogether  from  the  notice  of  the  British  pub- 
lic, f  But  such  a  policy  was  attended  with  greater 
evils  than  were  likely  to  have  ensued  if  things  had 
been  suffered  to  take  their  natural  course.  A  great 
part,  indeed,  of  the  critical  literature  of  Germany  was 

*  Strauss,  for  example,  is  compelled  to  acknowledjco  that  I,nkc,thc  author 
of  the  third  Gospel  aud  the  Acts,  was  the  compauion^  and  most  probably  the 
disciple,  of  St.  Paul. 

t  See  some  curious  details  in  the  Appendix  to  Goode's  *  Life  of  Geddcs.' 
The  scandal  occasioned  by  the  translations  of  Schleicrmacher,  and  even  of 
Neibuhr,  are  matters  of  recent  memory. 


EsaAYlL]  EVIDENCES  OF  CIUIISTIANITY.  (73 

valuable  in  no  sense  whatever.  Much  ot  it  was  a 
mere  succession  of  wild  livpotheses/-^  springing  up,  like 
mushrooms,  in  the  morning,  and  perishing  at  night, 
without  leaving  even  a  relic  of  their  decay  to  manure 
tlie  soil  on  which  they  had  flourished.  Much  of  it  was 
the  mere  lost  labour  of  a  perverse  diligence,  and  sinister 
ingenuity,  like  the  fairy  toil  of  the  Gnomes  and  Kobolds 
in  the  fables  of  its  own  mines  and  forests.  But  so  vast 
an  amount  of  intense  mental  activity  and  unlimited 
research  into  all  the  recesses  of  learning,  sacred  and 
profane, — so  free  a  questioning  of  everything ;  so  vari- 
ous a  combination  of  new  ideas  upon  such  a  multitude 
of  subjects, — could  not  but  contain  in  it  seeds  of  thought 
that  might  have  usefully  stimulated  the  natural  indo- 
lence of  our  intellect  at  home.  The  mere  love  of  Truth 
for  its  own  sake  is,  in  general,  not  sufficient  to  set  men 
on  work,  and  keep  them  at  work.  It  is,  to  a  great 
extent,  the  collision  of  thought,  the  pressure  of  difficul- 
ties, the  agitation  of  doubts,  that,  by  "  troubling  the 
waters,"  makes  them  yield  their  virtue.  Tlie  culture 
of  the  mind  is  like  the  tillage  of  the  soil — 

"  Pater  ipse  colendi 
Haud  fiicllom  esse  viam  voluit,  primusque  per  artcs 
Movit  agros,  curis  acuens  mortalia  corda, 
Nee  torpere  gravi  passus  sua  regua  vetcrno." 

As  it  was,  English  scholarship  seemed  to  have  settled 
upon  its  lees ;  and  we  have  scarcely  ever  had  an  age 
so  barren  of  any  great  efforts  as  that  of  which  we  are 
now  sp caking. f 

*  "  It  is  well  known,"  saj's  Do  Wette  in  the  Prefoce  to  his  '  Lchrbnch  der 
historisch-kritischen  Einlcituni^,'  "  that  from  the  beginninj:^ ....  the  pernicious 
fondness   for  vain    and   arbitrary  combinations   and  hypotheses  has    been 

bronght  into  this  department The   burden   of  hypotheses  under 

which  Biblical  introduction  labours  has  been  much  increased  in  recent 
times."  He  takes  credit  for  bringing  hack  the  history  of  the  Septuagiut  ver- 
sion to  the  place  in  which  Hodj/  left  it  in  170-i, 

t  I  have  purposely  avoided  any  details  of  the  reaction  towards  Church 
authority  called  the  Tract  Movement.  It  is  certain  that,  so  far  from  doing 
anything  to  revive  the  study  of  Cliristian  evidences,  some  of  the  foremost 
leaders  of  that  movement  went  even  beyond  the  most  violent  ultra-Protes- 
tants in  denouncing  that  study  as  dangerous;  and  ultimately  encouraged 
men  to  "throw  themselves"  into  a  particular  system,  on  the  ground  mainly 
of  its  affording  scope  to  certain  religious  feelings,  and  gratifying  certain 
religious  tastes.  This  branch  of  the  subject  has  been  considered  in  tuo  '  Cau- 
tions/or the  Times.'     (Parker  and  Son,  London.) 

4 


fj^  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  XL 

12.  But  nieanwliile  men  of  leisure  and  curiosity,  in 
the  universities  and  elsewliere,  disgusted  witli  the  tame 
and  superficial  monotony  that  prevailed  around  tliem, 
were  repairing,  as  it  were,  in  secret,  to  the  fresh  stores 
that  had  been  opened  on  the  continent  of  Europe.  The 
very  circumstance  that  this  foreign  literature  was  se- 
cluded from  the  vulgar  gaze,  and  even  a  kind  of  contra- 
band learning,  gave  it  an  additional  charm.  The  adejDts 
felt  as  if  they  had  been  initiated  in  some  higher  myste- 
ries, and  were  disposed  hughly  to  over-estimate  the 
value  of  their  attainments.  Doubts  and  strange  opin- 
ions which,  if  they  had  been  freely  expressed  and  ven- 
tilated in  the  fresh  air  and  broad  sunshine  of  public 
discussion,  would  have  soon  shrunk  to  their  proper 
small  dimensions,  grew  into  giants  in  the  shade,  and 
over-mastered  the  minds  that  had  been  nursing  them  in 
secret.  Then,  gradually,  the  influence  of  the  new  opin- 
ions began  to  pervade  the  current  literature  of  the 
country — not  in  plain  and  definite  statements — that 
would  have  too  rudely  shocked  the  multitude,  but 
sometimes  in  hints  "  vocal  to  the  intelligent,"  sometimes 
in  ambiguous  language  adapting  to  other  purposes  the 
religious  phrases  of  the  day,  sometimes  under  a  cloud 
of  metaphysical  jargon  that  bewildered  the  admiring 
reader.  Thus  it  has  come  to  pass  that,  without  any 
open  controversy,  but  silently,  as  it  were,  and  "  while 
men  slept,"  the  old  matter-of-fact  faith  has  died  out  in 
many  minds,  and  religion  has  come  to  be  regarded  as 
an  afi'air  of  sentiment,  that  should  be  disentangled,  as 
soon  as  possible,  from  its  historical  elements. 

13.  It  would  not,  I  think,  be  very  difiicult  to  meet 
the  patrons  of  such  views,  even  on  their  own  high  phil- 
osophical ground.  I  think  it  would  not  be  hard  to 
prove  that,  even  if  we  took  the  moral  wants  of  man  as 
the  sole  measure  of  religious  truth,  the  Gospel  which 
these  persons  preach  is  inadequate  to  meet  the  moral 
wants  of  man.  AVe  reqitlre  not  merely  an  ideal  of  hu- 
man excellence,  but  to  see  that  ideal  realized  /  and  to 
see  further  that  the  issue  of  that  realization  has  been 
a  triumph  over  all  the  ills  of  life,  and  over  all  the  men- 


Essay  II.]  KYIDEXCES  OF   CHRISTIANITY.  ^^5 

aces  of  cleatli.  We  require  to  be  sliown,  in  fact^  that 
man  can  truly  serve  God,  and  tliat  the  end  of  that  ser- 
vice is  evcrhasting  life.  We  Qieed  a  basis  of  fact,  an 
historical  basis,  for  onr  religions  faith  ;  and  without 
such  a  basis  that  faith  is  a  mere  castle  in  the  air — a 
splendid  vision,  as  practically  inoperative  to  resist  real 
temptation  as  every  other  ideal  picture  has  ever  proved. 

But,  after  all,  this  would  be  only  "  answering  a  fool 
according  to  his  folly  ;  "  and  it  is  better  to  begin  by 
protesting  at  once  against  the  foundation  of  the  whole 
theory.  It  is  a  mere  delusion  to  fancy  that  man's  sup- 
posed wants  or  his  wishes  are  to  be  taken  as  either  the 
major  or  the  minor  limits,  or,  indeed,  as  any  measure 
at  all,  of  religious  truth.  AVe  cannot  be  justified  in  as- 
suming that  things  exist  because  we  seem  to  ourselves 
to  want,  or  because  we  feel  that  we  earnestly  desire 
their  existence  ;  nor  can  we  even  be  justified  in  disbe- 
lieving or  disregarding  the  existence  of  things  which 
seem  to  us  superfluous,  or  unpleasant,  or  even  noxious, 
if  assured  on  good  authority  that  they  exist,  and  that  it 
is  important  for  us  to  take  notice  of  their  existence. 

That  man  must,  indeed,  be  a  backward  scholar  in 
the  school  of  nature  wlio  has  not  learned,  even  from  his 
own  experience,  how  little  human  wants  and  wishes  are 
an  evidence  that  the  things  wanted  and  wished  for  really 
exist.  It  is  the  common  delusion  of  over-sanguine 
youth  to  fancy  that  we  shall  find  in  life  exactly  what 
we  seem  to  require,  and  that  circumstances  will  infal- 
libly open  for  us  those  opportunities  which  are  most 
suitable  for  the  display  of  our  talents,  and  the  advance- 
ment of  our  fortunes.  But  how  little  does  stern  reality 
tally  with  these  golden  dreams  of  the  inexperienced 
imagination  !  And  shall  we  go  on  to  the  grave,  trust- 
ing these  promises  of  our  own  fancy,  which  every  day 
is,  with  continually  accumulated  evidence,  proving  to 
be  false  ? 

It  is  not,  if  we  are  wise,  to  our  wants  and  wishes 
that  we  trust,  in  the  aifairs  of  this  world,  as  evidence 
tliat  the  means  of  remedying  those  wants,  or  gratifying 
tliose  wishes,  are  in  store  for  us  ;  but  to  the  proper  cvi- 


YQ  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  II. 

dence  of  matters  of  fact.  And  if  we  would  find  a  solid 
basis  for  our  religious  faltli,  we  must  obtain  for  it  also  a 
similar  foundation. 

The  truth  is  that  we  may  see  beforehand  that  tlie 
wants  and  wishes  of  a  creature  like  man  are  boundless, 
and,  in  their  very  nature,  incapable  of  being  all  grati- 
fied. All  creatures  are  necessarily  imperfect ;  and 
every  imperfection  is  the  want  of  some  conceivable 
good ;  and  every  conceivable  good  is  in  itself  desircible ; 
and  may,  if  we  give  the  reins  to  our  desire,  become  an 
object  of  our  wishes. 

"  Men  would  be  angels,  angels  would  be  gods." 

Nothing  short  of  absolute,  of  infinite  perfection  can 
possibly  supply  all  wants,  and  gratify  all  the  wishes 
of  an  imperfect  being,  who  fancies  that  he  has  only  to 
wish  strongly  in  order  to  obtain  his  object. 

And  equally  vain  is  the  notion  that  we  may  safely 
disregard  everything  that  seems  not  suitable  to  our 
moral  nature.  Here,  again,  let  us  have  recourse  to  that 
analogy  which  the  great  master  of  that  argument  has 
justly  described  as  "  the  very  guide  of  life."  IIow  ill 
would  a  child  reason  who  should  obstinately  neo;lect 
every  study,  the  use  of  which  he  could  not  himself  dis- 
ceri/l  And,  as  to  the  things  of  another  life,  are  we  not 
all  children  ?  Shall  we,  who  know  not  what  an  hour 
may  bring  fortli, — we,  whose  wisest  calculations  and 
most  sagacious  foresight  are  perpetually  baffled  and 
broughtto  nothing  in  a  moment  by  the  changes  and 
chances  of  even  this  short  mortal  life — shall  we  presume 
to  take  our  own  case .  for  eternity  into  our  own  hands, 
and  determine  for  ourselves  what  is  sufficient  for  us  to 
believe  ?  The  Almiglity  has  taken  us  under  His  own 
care.  He  has  promised  us  an  inheritance  of  which  we 
know  little  more  than  that  it  is  a  state  of  eternal  holi- 
ness and  happiness.  He  has  engaged  to  prepare  us  for 
it  here,  and,  for  that  purpose,  has  revealed  to  us  those 
truths  which  He  saw  fitting  for  our  discipline.  Can 
we  know  so  certainly  how  the  character  which  He  re- 
quires is  to  be  formed,  as  to  be  able  to  correct  the 


Essay  II.]  EVIDENCES  OF   ClIPJSTIAXITY. '  Y7 

method  wliicli  lie  Las  been  pleased  to  employ  ?  Do  we 
know  our  spiritual  diseases  so  well  that  we  can  safely 
reject  the  remedies  which  the  Great  Physician  lias  pre- 
scribed for  them  ?  Are  we,  in  this  onr  state  of  infancy, 
so  perfectly  acquainted  with  all  that  is  needful  for  our 
manhood  that  we  can  manage  our  own  edu(^ation,  and 
determine  the  training  by  which  we  are  to  be  reared  for 
Heaven  ?  If,  indeed,  the  present  life  were  the  whole 
of  each  man's  existence,  if  our  only  immortality  were 
the  immortality  of  the  human  race,  there  might  bo 
some  specious  ground  for  saying  that  we  had  now  made 
such  a  survey  of  all  our  narrow  domain,  and  gained 
such  a  knowledge  of  our  capacities  and  imj)lements, 
that  we  were  at  last  entitled  to  be  our  own  nnisters,  and 
might  trust  to  our  own  little  skill  and  prudence  in  the 
management  of  our  own  little  territory.  But  if  a 
boundless  and  untried  existence,  beyond  the  limits  of 
all  our  experience,  really  does  lie  before  each  individual 
hereafter,  it  is  surely  mere  madness  to  neglect,  in  mat- 
ters which  concern  that  existence,  the  teachings  of  Him 
who  alone  knows  the  nature  of  that  hidden  world  into 
which  we  are  so  blindly  passing. 

A  prudent  man,  then,  will  not  only  inquire  what  it 
is  that  his  heart  seems  to  want,  but  also  how  far  those 
wants  are,  in  point  of  fact,  supplied.  He  will  not  only 
consider  what  he  wishes  to  be  true,  but  what  he  has 
reasonable  evidence  for  believing  to  be  true.  He  will 
treat  the  truths  of  Religion  as  matters  of  fact,  and  seek 
for  the  appropriate  evidence  of  matters  of  fact — that  is, 
in  other  words,  for  historical  evidence. 

14.  A  religion  disentangled  entirely  from  all  histor- 
ical inquiries,  and  commending  itself  immediately  to 
the  mind  by  its  mere  intrinsic  beauty  and  suitability  to 
man's  w^ants  and  wishes,  may  be  a  very  captivating 
vision,  and  seems  highly  desirable  on  many  accounts ; 
but  it  is  a  gross  abuse  of  words  to  call  such  a  religion 
Christianity.  Christianity  is  the  religion  which  was 
taught  by  Christ  and  his  Apostles ;  and  it  was  certainly 
an  historical  religion — a  religion  made  up  of  matters 
of  fact,  and  propounded  on  the  evidence  of  matters  of 


75  '  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essat  II. 

fact — which  they  promulgated.  "  That  wliich  we  have 
heard  and  seen  with  our  eyes,  and  onr  hands  have  han- 
dled of  the  Word  of  Life,  declare  we  unto  yon,"  is  the 
language  of  the  first  preachers  of  the  Gospel ;  and  the 
modern  attempt  to  separate  the  ideal  Christ,  the  type 
of  the  godlike  in  man,  from  the  historical  person,  is  not 
a  whit  less  opposed  to  the  genius  of  the  Apostolic  re- 
ligion than  was  that  teaching  of  the  Gnostics  against 
which  the  last  of  the  Apostles  raised  his  warning  voice 
as  the  very  spirit  of  Antichrist.  The  Christ  of  the 
Gnostics  was  an  impalpable  ^on ;  the  Christ  of  their 
"successors  is  something  less  substantial — an  abstract 
idea. 

Indeed,  whatever  may  be  the  case  with  other  re- 
ligions, the  Gospel  certainly  never  made  its  way  by 
first  recommending  itself  to  the  conscious  wants  and 
wishes  of  mankind.  It  seemed,  on  the  contrary,  to 
contradict  all  man's  expectations,  and  to  outrage  all 
their  cherished  feelings,  and  to  cross  all  their  desires. 
It  was  "  to  the  Jews  a  stumblingblock,  and  to  the 
Greeks  foolishness."  It  is  not  until  believed  and 
acted  upon  that  it  gradually  changes  the  temper  and 
frame  of  mind  into  accordance  with  itself;  it  is  like 
some  of  those  tonic  medicines  which,  at  first,  seem  bit- 
ter and  disagreeable,  until  the  j^alate  is  accustomed  to 
their  taste,  and  the  stomach  braced  and  strengthened 
by  their  wholesome  harshness. 

It  may,  indeed,  on  the  surface,  seem  strange  that 
the  Christian  religion  should  be  thus  encumbered,  as  it 
were,  by  an  apparatus  of  history  ;  and  that  men  should 
be  required  to  investigate  the  evidence  of  past  transac- 
tions in  order  to  find  a  basis  for  their  Faith,  instead  of 
merely  consulting  their  hearts,  and  finding  an  echo 
there,  to  attest  the  divinity  of  its  voice.  But  in  this,  as 
in  other  cases,  we  shall  find,  upon  reflection,  that  Avhat 
seems  the  foolishness  of  God,  is  wiser  than  men.  The 
careful  and  candid  investigation  of  the  evidences  on 
which  Christianity  rests — not  for  the  satisfying  a  mere 
inquisitive  curiosity,  but  to  find  truth  for  the  regulation 
of  our  lives — is  an  eminently  practical  exercise  of  the 


Essay  II.]  EVIDENCES  OF  CIIPJSTIANITY.  tjg 

understanding,  and  brings  home  the  great  facts  of  onr 
religion  as  facts  to  the  mind,  with  a  feeling  of  their 
reality  which  the  most  highly  raised  efforts  of  the  imag- 
ination cannot   give  them ;    and  thus  makes  rational 
deliberate  faith  a  counterpoise  to  the  engrossing  influ- 
ence of  sense.     In  the  aliairs  of  the  world,  we  know 
that   realities   address   themselves,   in   some   shape   or 
other,  to  the  judgment ;  and  that  tliose  that  exclusively 
and  immediately  address  the  feelings  and  the  imagina- 
tion are  unreal.     If,  then,  the  objects  of  religion  en- 
tered only  through  this  ivory  gate  of  fancy  into  the 
mind,  a  steady  practical  faith  in  their  reality  could  be 
hardly  maintained.     I  say  a  steady  'practical  faith  ;  for, 
undoubtedly,  if  religion  were  a  mere  affair  of  feeling 
divorced  from  practice,  or  of  practice  divorced  from 
motive,  and  reduced  to  the  mere  mechanism  of  custom, 
there  might  be  something  intelligible  in  discarding  all 
investigation  of  evidence.  Every  one,  even  supei'ficially 
acquainted  with  the  structure  of  the  human  mind,  is 
aware  that  the  feelings  may,  as  in  the  case  of  a  novel 
or  a  play,  be  deeply  interested  and  strongly  excited, 
without  anything  but,  at  best,  a  sort  of  dim  and  tran- 
'  sient  belief  in  the  reality  of  the  objects  which  thus  in- 
terest and  excite  them  ;  and  that,  for  such  a  purpose, 
scarcely  anything  more  is  necessary  than  that  the  mind 
should  not,  for  the  time,  attend  to  their  imreality.     Tliis 
suffices  for  mere  feeling  :  but  for  action,  a  perfectly 
sane  man  requires  more.     He  requires  evidence  as  a 
ground  of  belief:  and,  even  in  an  insane  man, — where 
the  fancy  has  become  paramount,  and  established  its 
throne  upon  the  ruins  of  the  understanding,  close  ob- 
servers can  generally  detect  a  lurking  suspicion  of  the 
deceitfulness  of  the  mind's  own  visions, — an  unsteady 
wavering  flicker  in  the  predominating  persuasion,  which 
betrays  a  difference  of  no  small  importance  between 
rational  and  irrational  belief ;  a  secret  sense  of-  insecu- 
rity and  weakness,  which  makes  the  mind  of  the  mad- 
man, except  in  some  high  paroxysm  of  frenzy,  succumb 
and  quail  before  the  calmer  presence  of  a  well-regulat- 
ed intellect. 


gQ  AIDS  TO  FAlTil.  [Essay  IL 

15.  There  is  anotlier  use  also  served  l>y  tliis  compli- 
cation of  religion  witli  historical  inquiry,  "svhich  it  is 
not  unsuitable  to  notice.  The  essential  connection  of 
Christianity  Avith  the  history  of  past  ages  makes  a  pro- 
vision for  the  maintenance  and  advancement  of  civiliza- 
tion in  every  country  in  Avliich  Christianity  prevails. 
It  was  this  which  made  the  preservation  of  learning 
possible  when  the  great  Hood  of  barbarism  swept  over 
Europe,  and  the  Church  alone  contained  the  sacred  de- 
posit of  an  earlier  civilization — the  memory  of  the  past, 
and  the  hopes  of  the  future.  And  it  is  this  v/hich  is 
still  a  bulwark  against  barbarism.  Barbarism  is  essen- 
tially that  state  of  mind  which  is  produced  by  placing 
it  exclusively  under  the  influences  of  a  contracted  j?;/'6'5- 
ent  sphere  of  circumstances.  It  is,  as  Dr.  Johnson  just- 
ly said,  "  by  making  the  past,  the  distant,  and  the  fu- 
ture predominate  over  the  present,"  that  we  are  ''  ad- 
vanced in  the  dignity  of  thinking  beings."  All  history, 
more  or  less,  renders  this  valuable  service  to  the  human 
mind ;  but  it  cannot  be  reasonably  doubted  that  the 
history  of  the  Church,  in  that  view  of  it  which  the  Bible 
presents,  as  one  continuous  body  from  the  beginning  of 
the  world,  is,  of  all  others,  the  best  fitted  to  render  such 
a  service.  Tlie  idea  of  history,  it  has  been  truly  said,^^ 
is  that  of  the  biography  of  a  society.  There  must  be, 
to  constitute  the  narrative  properly  historical,  an  unity 
of  action,  interest,  and  purpose  among  the  persons  who 
are  the  subjects  of  it.  ]S"ow,  whether  we  consider  the 
length  of  its  duration,  or  the  breadth  of  its  extent, — the 
variety  of  its  fortunes,  or  the  unity  of  its  purpose, — the 
diversity  of  its  members  in  age,  and  character,  and  lan- 
guage, and  manners,  and  habits  of  thought,  and  stages 
of  cultivation,  or  the  closeness  of  mutual  relation  into 
which  all  these  seemingly  scattered  persons  have  been 
brought, — what  other  society  can  anywhere  be  pointed 
out  which  can  form  so  noble  and  so  useful  a  subject  for 
the  historian  ?  It  is  the  conception  of  the  Church 
which  enables  the  mind  not  only  to  combine,  but  to 
blend  together,  the  pastoral  simplicity  of  the  primitive 

*  Arnold's  Lectures  on  History. 


Essay  II.]  EVIDENCES   OF   CHRISTIANITY.  81 

times  of  mankind  and  tlie  elaborate  civilization  of  later 
Qo-es  • to  brino-  into  one  collection  all  the  characteris- 
tics of  all  the^climes   and  regions  of  the  world  ;— to 
bring  all  specimens  of  the  human  family,  "  from  the 
north  and  from  the  south,  and  from  the  east  and  from 
the  west,"  and  make  them  ''  sit  down  "  before  ns  "  in 
the  kingdom  of  God."     Nor  can  I  doubt  that  the  pecu- 
liar strength,  and' freedom,  and  versatility  of  the  mod- 
ern European  intellect  are,  to  a  great  extent,  due  to  the 
historical  character  of  Christianity.     Xo  one  can  read, 
intelligently,  so  much  as  the  prime  documents  of  our 
faith,  even'^in  a  vernacular  translation,  without  feeling 
himself  transported  into  a  region  where  the  modes  of 
conception  and  of  expression,  the  events  and  the  insti- 
tutions to  be  met  with,  are  strikingly  different  from 
those  which  surround  him  with  the  associations  of  ev- 
eryday life ;  without,  in  short,  finding  himself,  for  the 
time,  emancipated  from  the  mere  influence  of  tlie  pres- 
ent, and  brought  under  that  of  the  distant  and  the  past. 
Xor  could  anything  have   secured  such  a  potent  and 
salutary  influence  to  history  over  the  human  mind  as 
the  indissoluble  tie  by  which  it  is  connected  with  relig- 
ion ;  the  feeling  that,  in  our  nearest  and  most  intimate 
relations,  we  are  personally  connected,  as  members  of 
one  iDody,  with  the  remotest  past  and  the  illimitable 
future,— linked  in  one  unbroken  living  chain,  with  ])atri- 
jirclis  and  prophets,  and  apostles  and  martyrs,— heirs 
with  them  of  the  same  promise,  and  waiting  with  them 
for  the  same  completion  of  the  great  mystery  of  God. 
And  it  is  worth  observing  that  Providence  has  so  ar- 
ranged matters,  that  the  Eastern  world— to  which  the 
lano-iia^-e  and  habits  of  thought  contained  in  Scripture 
were  most  familiar, — seems  destined  to  receive  back  its 
lessons,  modified  by  the  peculiarities  of  Western  civili- 
zation and  European  teaching.     In  those  nations  where 
the  language  of  Christianity  was,  as  it  were,  a  native 
voice,  it  produced  least  influence  at  first  as  a  source  of 
permanent  civilization.     It  was  the  leaven  oi  foreign 
associations  which  caused  a  fermentation  in  the  West- 
ern mind  :  and,  from  the  blended  mass  which  was  the 
4* 


82  ^IDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  II. 

product  of  that  fermentation,  it  seems  destined  to  pass 
back  to  the  realms  from  which  it  came,  in  a  form  fitted 
to  produce  there  a  similar  eftect. 

In  the  same  degree,  then,  as  any  system  has  a 
tendency  to  break  the  connexion  between  history  and 
religion,  in  that  same  degree  it  tends  to  deprive  civili- 
zation itself  of  one  of  its  chief  safeguards, — to  with- 
draw from  effective  operation  one  of  the  most  power- 
ful causes  which  now  stimulate  research  and  bring  the 
minds  of  the  present  generation  into  contact  Avith  those 
of  the  past.  If  the  mind  be  referred  immediately,  for 
religious  guidance,  not  to  an  historical  document,  but 
to  a  supposed  infallible  authority  of  the  present 
Church,  or  to  the  supposed  infallible  authority  of  each 
man's  fancy  and  feelings,  the  influences  favourable  to 
barbarism  are  so  far  restored  :  and  I  think  the  visible 
results  of  both  experiments,  so  far  as  either  has  been  con- 
sistently worked  out,  are  such  as  to  show  that  a  retrogres- 
sion towards  barbarism  v»'Ould  betheirmostprobable  con- 
sequence. To  look  only  at  the  2:)re3ent — to  live  in  tho 
present — shape  our  habits  by  the  present — adopt,  at 
every  change,  the  vogue  of  the  day — and  cast  aside 
whatever  we  cannot  accommodate  to  the  taste  of  our 
own  generation — this  is  to  do  our  utmost  to  restore 
barbarity,  and  sink  us  below  tho  level  on  vrhich  God 
and  nature  intended  us  to  bo  placed.  And  hence  we 
may  find  fresh  reason  for  admiring  the  wisdom  of  the 
Divine  economy  wdiich,  in  the  case  of  the  Jewish  and 
of  the  Christian  Church  alike,  withdrew,  after  a  while, 
the  living  voice  of  inspired  guides,  and  substituted  for 
them,  as  the  ultimate  basis  of  faith,  a  written  historical 
record  of  their  teaching  ;  thus  building  the  Church,  as 
a  continuous  body  through  all  ages,  on  that  foundation 
of  the  apostles  and  prophets,  of  which  Jesus  Christ 
Himself  is  the  chief  conier-stone. 

16.  But  then  it  will  be  said, — ''Is  not  Christianity  a 
Gospel  to  be  preached  to  the  poor?  and  how  are  the 
mean  and  illiterate  to  judge  of  the  historical  evidences 
of  Christianity?" 

Now,  undoubtedly,  not  in  religious  matters  alone, 


Essay  II.]  EVIDENCES  OF  CHEISTIANITY.  83 

but  in  respect  of  almost  every  useful  truth  alike — 
moral,  scientific,  economical,  political— the  uneducated 
and  ill-educated  classes  labour  under  peculiar  disad- 
vantages ;  and  this,  so  far  as  it  is  a  difficulty ,_  is  a 
difficuhy  upon  every  hypothesis  which  admits  a 
benevolent  Providence  and  recognises  a  difference 
between  truth  and  falsehood."  Tlie  true  lesson  to  be 
derived  from  the  circumstance  is,  that  Ave  are  bound, 
as  far  as  we  can,  to  raise  the  condition  of  our  meaner 
brethren,  and  make  them  more  and  more  capable  of 
judging  for  themselves.  Still,  however,  no  doubt, 
great  difference  Avill  continue  to  subsist :  nor  will  it 
ever  be  possible  to  equahze  all  understandings,  or 
make  the  opportunities  and  capacities  of  improvement 
the  same  for  every  mind.  But  each  class  must  be 
contented,  in  this  as  in  other  cases,  with  such  an 
amount  of  evidence  as  its  circumstances  will  allow ; 
and,  if  the  upper  classes  would  faithfully  do  their 
duty,  this  amount  of  evidence  would  not  be  small  in 
any  case. 

Let  it  be  observed  tliat  the  form  of  this  objection 
allows  us  to  assume  that  Christianity  is  true;  that  it  is 
capable  of  being  proved  true  by  rational  evidence  to 
well-informed  persons;  that,  among  men  of  literary 
attainments,  it  can  hold  its  ground  with  the  weapons  of 
argument ;  that  it  needs  not  to  fear  any  amount  of 
light,  or  shrink  from  any  examination  however  search- 
ing; and,  assuming  this,  let  us  consider  what  tlie^  con- 
dition of  the  lower  classes  would  have  been,  if  the 
Church  had  faithfully  done  its  duty.  The  Christian 
religion  would  then  come  before  them  as  a  religion 
manifestly  subserving  no  interested  temporal  ends — 
encumbered  with  no  artifices  of  priestcraft — notorious- 
ly based,  from  the  first,  upon  the  ground  of  rational 
evidence,  and  maintaining  itself  through  nil  genera- 
tions upon  that  ground  alone, — open  to  all  challengers, 
and  ready  at  all  times  to  give  a  reason  of  its  hope  to 

*  The  difficulties  attcndinfi;  the  rejection  of  these  being  all  the  marks  of 
design  and  benevolent  intention  in  the  structure  of  nature  and  the  course  of 
history. 


84  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  II. 

every  one  demanding  it; — and  can  it  be  said  that  this 
would  not  be  good  evidence  to  tliem  of  its  truth  ;  and 
evidence  of  the  same  kind  as  that  upon  which  they 
must  rely,  from  their  circumstances,  for  the  truth  of 
almost  everj'thing  of  importance  at  all  removed  beyond 
the  sphere  of  their  own  immediate  experience  ?  ^"'  It 
is  the  putting  of  Christianity  upon  other  grounds;  it  is 
the  claim  of  authority  to  silence  doubt ;  it  is  the  dis- 
couragement of  inquiry,  the  contempt  of  reason,  the 
depreciation  of  intellect  in  religious  matters ;  it  is  the 
shrinking  from  light  and  correction,  the  suffering  pure 
truth  to  be  encrusted  with  prejudices  and  mistakes  for 
fear  of  unsettling  men's  minds  ;  it  is  the  borrowing  of 
the  arts  and  language  that  are  the  common-signs  of 
imposture  by  the  friends  of  truth,  and  leaving  its  own 
bold  speech  and  open  ways  to  its  enemies  ;  it  is  these 
unworthy  methods  that  deprive  the  lower  classes  of  the 
safeguards  wdiich,  with  such  a  religion,  they  might  and 
ought  to  have  for  the  security  of  their  faith.  The 
Providence  of  God  has  linked  all  classes  together  in 
mutual  dependence,  so  that,  "  if  one  member  suffer,  all 
the  members  suffer  with  it ;"  and  the  Gospel  cannot  be 
preached  to  the  poor,  if  the  well-instructed  scribes  do 
not  take  the  only  measures  by  which  it  can  possibly  be 
preached  with  effect. 

17.  But,  even  of  direct  evidence,  the  amonnt  is  not 
slight  that  is  within  the  reach  of  the  humbler  classes. 
There  is  much  of  most  ^^ersuasive  evidence  of  the  truth 
of  Christianity  which  not  only  requires  no  dialectical 
skill  to  make  it  felt,  but  which  cannot  be  drawn  out 
and  stated  in  its  full  force  by  any  amonnt  of  dialectical 
skill.  Let  any  one  consider  with  himself  what  the 
nature  of  the  evidence  is  upon  which  he  has  formed 
his  judgment  of  the  characters  of  the  persons  with 
whom  he  converses  in  daily  life.  What  a  medley 
of  slight  traits,  looks,  gestures,  chance  expressions, 
little  circumstances,  each,  perhaps,  ambiguous  in  itself, 

*  Sec  an  interesting  statement  of  the  nature  of  the  evidence  witbin  the 
reach  of  the  lower  orders,  in  Archbishop  Whately's  'Easy  Lessons'  on  the 
Evidences,  pp.  23-27. 


Essay  II.]  EVIDENCES  OF   CIIKISTIANITY.  85 

but  all  conspirini^  in  one  deiiiiite  impression,  M'ill  it 
a})pear!  And  all  these  he  lias  gathered  in  and  com- 
bined, not  by  a  consciously  logical  ])rocess,  watching 
for  and  sifting  each  scruple  of  evidence  as  it  arose,  and 
then  deliberately  putting  them  together,  like  a  clever 
advocate  to  make  a  case  ;  but  unconsciously,  and  by  a 
kind  of  instinct,  the  mind  lias  drawn  its  inference  from 
these  little  circumstances  which  he  can  remember,  and 
from  a  thousand  other  evanescent  phenomena  wdiicli  he 
cannot  now  recall.  And  yet  all  this  evidence  was 
good  evidence,  upon  which  lie  unhesitatingly  relies. 

Now  such  is  the  reasonable  evidence  which  the 
Scriptures  themselves  yield  to  the  candid  and  attentive 
reader,  who  is  neither  searching  for  proof  nor  watch- 
ing for  objections.  It  deposits,  as  it  were,  the  practi- 
cal persuasion  of  its  own  truthfulness  and  honesty  by 
a  thousand  artless  traits  Avhilc  we  converse  with  its 
pages.  "If  we  may  judge,"  says  Jackson,  "of  the 
truth  of  men's  waitings  by  their  outward  form  or 
character,  as  we  do  of  men's  honesty  by  their  looks, 
speech,  or  behaviour,  wdiat  history  in  the  w^orld  bears 
so  perfect  a  resemblance  to  things  done  and  acted,  or 
yields  (without  further  testimony  than  its  own)  so  full 
assurance  of  a  true  narration?"  [Works,  vol.  i.  p.  27.] 
Men  who  never  consciously  framed  a  syllogism  have 
felt,  and  are  daily  feeling,  the  force  of  such  evidence. 
They  are  continually  perusing  the  accounts  of  miracles 
so  numerous  and  so  striking  that  the  witnesses  of  them 
could  not  be  mistaken,  and  yet  imbedded  indissolubly  * 
in  a  narrative  so  artless,  so  grave,  so  honest,  so  intelli- 
gent, as  palpably  to  be  no  product  of  fraud  or  foncy ; 
and,  without  any  elaborate  criticism  or  detailed  pro- 
cess of  deduction,  their  mind  talx.cs  the  impression 
wdiicli  a  book  so  circumstanced  is  naturally  and  rea- 
sonably fitted  to  impart.  Thus  many  a  mind  that  has 
scarcely  ever  felt  a  doubt,  or  heard  of  an  inlidel  in 

*  "The  miracles  in  the  Bible,"  says  Bolin<^broke,  "arc  not,  like  those  in 
Livy,  detached  pieces  that  do  not  disturb  the  civil  history,  which  <;ocs  on  very 
well  without  them.  .  .  .  But  the  whole  history  is  i'ouuded  on  Iheni ;  it 
consists  of  little  else ;  and  if  it  were  not  a  history  of  them,  it  would  be  a  his- 
tory of  nothing." 


gg  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  II 

Christian  lands,  has,  in  reality,  based  its  faith  upon 
rational  evidence.  Its  belief  has  not  been  built 
amidst  the  noise  of  hammers  and  the  ring  of  axes,  but 
has  grown  up,  "a  noiseless  structure,"  from  the  ground 
of  an  honest  and  true  heart. 

IS.  In  some  respects,  indeed,  the  result  of  the  un- 
limited development  of  critical  inquiry  abroad  has 
been  to  diminish,  rather  than  increase  the  difficulties 
of  comparatively  unlearned  readers.  Almost  the  only 
infidel  theory  which  is  quite  intelligible  to  the  lower 
orders,  is  that  coarse  one  v/hich  treats  the  New  Testa- 
ment as  a  mere  forgery  throughout,  or  ascribes  the  origin 
of  our  religion  to  gross  fraud  and  imposture.  Kow,  if 
there  be  any  certain  result  of  German  criticism  at  all, 
it  has  been  to  show  that  any  such  theory  is  utterly  un- 
tenable. The  Wolfenbiittel  Fragments  w^ere  almost  the 
last  shameful  effort  in  that  direction,  and  their  track  is 
a  road  which  no  one,  with  the  smallest  pretensions  to 
literary  character,  avouM  now  venture  to  pursue.  Count- 
less other  evasions  of  the  plain  force  of  evidence,  each 
contradictory  of  the  other,  and  each  rejected  with  con- 
tempt by  almost  every  one  but  its  author,  have  been 
invented  ;  but  there  is,  except  at  Tiibingen,  no  disposi- 
tion to  return  to  what  may  be  called  the  old  orthodox 
system  of  infidelity.  To  men  of  plain  common  sense, 
if  they  fully  understood  the  whole  state  of  the  case,  it 
would  appear  that  all  the  premisses  are  granted  which 
render  inevitable  an  admission  of  the  substantial  truth 
of  Christianity.  Put,  for  example,  Paul's  undoubted 
Epistles,  with  Luke's  Gospel  and  Acts,  into  the  hands 
of  a  plain  ordinary  Englishman,  and  tell  him,  "It  is 
no  longer  questioned  that  these  letters  are  the  genuine 
work  of  Paul ;  it  is  no  longer  questioned  that  the 
writer  of  the  other  Books  was  his  companion,  who  com- 
piled them  while  the  men  were  still  alive,  who  had 
conversed  with  Jesus,  and  seen  him  crucified ;  it  is  no 
longer  doubted  that  Paul  and  Luke  were  sincere  and 
honest  men  who  had  no  design  to  impose  upon  their 
hearers ;  and  the  alternatives  before  you  are  either  to 
admit  that   Christianity  was    really   grounded   upon 


Essay  II.]  EVIDENCES  OF   CHRISTIANITY.  g^ 

miracles,  or  to  explain  these  documents  by  the 
methods  of  Paulns,  or  Stranss,  or  AVeisse,  or  some 
otlier  Naturalistic  or  Mythic  Doctor  ;" — let  this,  I  say, 
be  the  issue  placed  before  an  Englishman  of  ordinary 
common  sense  and  information,  and  there  can  be  little 
doubt  that  he  would  regard  the  first  alternative  as  far 
less  prodigiously  incredible  than  the  second.  The  case 
stands  thus : 

19.  The  origin  of  the  Christian  religion  is  not  one 
of  those  events  so  distant  as  to  be  lost  in  a  fabulous 
antiquity.  Whatever  gave  rise  to  it  occurred  at  a  period 
of  which  we  know  a  great  deal,  in  a  civilized  world, 
and  within  historic  times;  and  was  something  which 
enabled  the  first  preachers  to  make  more  converts  among 
enernAes  in  five  years,  than  our  most  active  missionaries 
have  made  in  five  centuries.  Within  no  long  time  after 
the  death  of  Jesus  we  find  Christian  Churches  difi'used 
in  the  most  distant  places  over  this  civilized  world, 
continually  growing  in  numbers  and  importance,  under 
the  eyes  and  in  spite  of  the  hostility  of  their  powerful 
neighbours.  The  consentient  tradition  of  all  these 
Churches  ascribes  their  foundation  to  the  first  Disciples 
of  Jesus  Christ,  and  ascribes  to  those  Disciples  the 
Gospel  that  He  had  been  raised  from  the  dead,  and 
that  this  Hesurrection,  with  its  preceding  and  accom- 
panying miracles,  was  the  ground  of  their  faith.  Their 
creeds,  their  sacraments, 'their  universal  observance  of 
Easter  and  the  Aveekly  Lord's  day,  all  embody  this  tradi- 
tion. These  Churches  are  not  without  written  historical 
records."  They  put  forward,  with  one  consent,  a  body 
of  documents,  giving  a  detailed  account  of  Christ's  life, 
and  death,  and  resurrection,  and  of  the  first  preaching 
and  fortunes  of  his  Apostles,  and  embracing  a  collection 
of  letters  from  some  of  tliose  Apostles  themselves. 
With  respect  to  many  of  these  writings,  no  literary 

*  "  It  is  allowed,"  says  Mr.  AVcstcott,  "  by  Uiosc  who  have  reduced  the 
ffenuine  Apostolic  works  to  the  narrowest  limits,  that  from  the  time  of 
Irenaius  \i.  e.  the  latter  part  of  the  second  century]  the  New  Testament  was 
composed  essentially  of  the  same  books  as  we  receive  at  present,  and  that 
they  were  regarded'  with  the  same  reverence  as  is  now  shown  to  them." — 
History  of  the  Canon,  p.  8. 


88  ^IDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  II 

man  of  any  character,  at  present,  doubts  their  genuine- 
ness With  respect  to  most  of  the  rest,  it  is  at  any  rate 
agreed  that  they  are  not  mere  forgeries  ofahite  age, 
hut  books  written  in  good  faith,  at  a  date  when  tlie  true 
history  of  the  times  they  refer  to  was  easily  to  be  ob- 
tained. The  testimony  of  tliese  documents  is  the  same 
as  the  tradition  of  the  Churches.  They  put  the  Christian 
religion  upon  the  evidence  of  miraculous  facts,  and 
specially  of  Christ's  Resurrection,  as  attested  by  the 
alleged  witnesses  of  it,  in  the  very  place  where  He  had 
been  executed  as  a  malefactor,  and  in  the  face  of  the 
very  persons  by  whom  He  had  been  condennied  and 
slain. 

What  vre  are  called  upon  to  believe  is — that  all  the 
Churches  were  mistaken  as  to  the  grounds  of  their  own 
faith ;  that  all  the  documents,  and  the  Apostles  them- 
selves, have  given  a  wrong  account  of  it;  that  the 
belief  in  the  religion  was  not  grounded  on  the  belief  in 
the  miracles,  but  that  the  belief  in  the  miracles  was 
grounded  on  the  belief  in  the  religion ;  that  Jesus,  who 
(if  He  wrought  no  miracles  and  was  the  subject  of  no 
miracles)  contradicted,  in  every  circumstance  of  his 
birth,  and  education,  and  teaching,  and  life,  and  death, 
the  best  established  and  most  cherished  notions  of  all 
around  Him  concerning  the  promised  Messiah,  was  be- 
lieved, in  spite  of  all,  to  be  that  Messiah;  that  miracles 
were  ascribed  to  Him  because  the  Messiah  ought  to 
have  wrought  miracles ;  that  He  was  believed  to  have 
risen  again  because  it  suddenly  occurred  to  somebody 
that  He  ought  to  have  risen  again ;  and  that,  by  such 
an  easy  and  intelligible  process  as  this,  a  creed  of  fobles 
was  transmuted  into  a  creed  of  facts,  and  stamped  in- 
delibly, and  with  one  impression,  npon  the  hiith  and 
institutions  of  the  great  Christian  comnmnities  through- 
out the  world. 

This  is,  in  plain  words,  the  theory  ot  the  origin  of 
Christianity  corrected  to  the  latest  results  of  Continental 
criticism ;  and  it  seems  to  amount  to  this — that  Chris- 
tianity HAD  NO  origin  AT  ALL.  It  is,  iudccd,  Hot  criticisHi 
that  has  spontaneously  yielded  these  results;  but  it  is 


Essay  11.]  EVIDENXES  OF  ClIEISTIAXlTy.  89 

the  djmori  prejudice  against  miracles  wliicli  lias  forced 
criticism  upon  this  strange  enteri)rise. 

20.  Let  any  one  take  np  (it  is  almost  forgotten  now 
in  Germany,  but  may  be  still  met  with  in  England) 
Dr.  Stranss's  'Life  of  Jesns,'  and  he  will  see  at  once 
that  the  author  is  all  through  merely  working  out  a 
fore'^-one  conclusion.     Not  one  of  his  orthodox  prede- 
cessors in  the  seventeenth  century  ever  set  himself  with 
more  doirged  resolution  to  fight  his  way  through  all 
difficulties  in  defence  of  the  verbal  inspiration,  scientific 
accuracy,  and  textual  integrity  of  every  jot  and  tittle  m 
the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  and  lind  a  way,  or  make  one, 
to  the  goal  which  he  had  determined  to  reach,  than 
Strauss  does  to  destroy  it.    And  so  with  his  successors; 
the  very  multitude  and  discordance  of  their  theories  is 
a  witness  to  their  insufficiency.    They  are  the  struggles 
of  a  strono;  animal  in  toils  which  he  cannot  break.    Ihe 
favourable  posture  for  an  infidel  is  that  of  an  objector; 
when  he  is  forced  to  recognise  the  necessity  of  having 
something  positive  on  his  own  side,  he  finds  his  own 
difficulties  greater  than  those  over  which  he  has  been 
exulting  in  the  case   of  his  antagonists ;  and  the  end 
has  been  that,  in  Germany,  thinking  men  are  either 
returning  to  the  faith  of  their  fathers,  or  laying  the  de- 
tailed examination  of  the  phenomena   of  Christianity 
aside  as  an  insoluble  problem.     And    in   reality,   the 
greater  part  of  the  panic  which  has  lately  spread  among 
765,  from  the  reappearance  of  the  infidel  controversy  in 
England,  has  arisen  from  the  security,  the  unhesitating 
accfuiescence,  of  the  previous  generation.   Li  the  general 
silence  of  objectors,  in  the  general  recognition,  which 
pervaded  our  whole  literature,  of  the  unquestionable 
truth  of  Christianity,  men  had  ceased  to  reflect  partic- 
ularly upon  the  rational   grounds  of  their  laith.     The 
authority  of  the  Bible  became  a  kind   of  axiom,  and 
everything  that  was  supposed  to  be  involved  m  that 
authority  was  grasped  with  the  same  firmness  of  belief. 
In  such  a  state  of  mind,  the  whole  of  its  creed  is  no 
firmer  than  the  weakest  part ;  and  hence,  when  open 
attacks  began  again  to  be  made  upon  what  men  had 


90  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  I L 

regarded  from  their  cliildliood  as  essential  portions  of 
Christianity — when  attention  was  called  to  the  real  dif- 
ficulties which  beset  many  passages,  the  undoubtedly 
strong  objections  which  may  be  urged  against  many 
articles — when  writers  of  learning  and  ability  were 
quoted  as  authorities,  not  for,  but  against,  the  traditions 
of  their  youth — an  ahirm  arose  as  if  the  whole  of  religion 
w^as  giving  way.  This  danger  always  attends  the  con- 
centration of  a  whole  system  of  belief  upon  a  single 
23oint.  It  is  like  embarking  a  whole  army  at  once,  for 
a  long  and  perilous  voyage,  in  one  gigantic  transport. 
If  the  ship  hold  together,  much  is  gained  in  speed  and 
convenience ;  but  if  the  vessel  sink,  all  goes  with  her 
to  the  bottom. 

It  is  thus  with  the  Homanist,  who  builds  all  on  the 
authority  of  the  present  Church.  If  one  portion,  how- 
ever small  or  slight,  of  the  complicated  structure  of  liis 
creed  be  shaken,  the  basis  of  it  is  shaken,  and  the  entire 
edifice  falls  to  ruin  in  a  moment.  And  so,  when  the 
feelings  of  tlie  reader  have  been  made  the  test  of  the 
inspiration  of  Scripture ; — when  men  have  been  accus- 
tomed to  say,  "  ^afeel^  from  the  echo  in  our  bosoms, 
from  the  warm  sentiments  of  devotion  which  it  excites, 
from  the  sensible  comfort  that  it  gives,  that  this  is  and 
must  be  no  less  than  the  voice  of  God  speaking  with 
us;" — in  such  a  case  the  decision  of  criticism  against 
the  genuineness  or  authenticity  of  a. single  book,  or 
even  of  a  single  passage,  becomes  a  thing  formidable 
to  the  whole  of  faith.  If  the  religious  sense,  on  which 
the  reader  relies  for  distinguishing  the  divine  from  the 
human,  have  erred  in  any  case,  its  assumed  infollibility 
is  gone  ;  the  test  itself  of  inspiration  is  shown  to  be  fal- 
lacious; and  he  is  left  doubtful  whether  the  whole  of 
his  belief  may  not  be  founded  on  a  mere  delusion. 

But  a  laitli  founded  upon  rational  evidence  is  not 
liable  to  be  thus  shaken.  If  it  be  shown,  for  example, 
that  a  particular  verse  in  the  1st  Epistle  of  John,  or 
even  a  long  passage  in  his  Gospel,  is  an  interpolation, 
this  does  not  subvert  the  proof  of  the  genuineness  oi 
the  rest  of  those  pieces;  since  the  evidence  for  the  dis- 


Essay  II.]  EVIDEXCES  OF   CIIIilSTIANITY.  gj 

piited  parts,  and  the  evidence  for  the  rest  of  the  docu- 
ments, is  not  the  same ;  and  such  a  faith  is  grounded 
npon  and  proportioned  to  the  evidence.  And  if  the 
evidences  of  Christianity, — tlieir  nature  and  degrees, — 
and  even  the  first  elements  of  the  criticism  of  our  sacred 
books,  were  made  an  ordinary  part  of  tlie  instruction 
of  every  tolerably  educated  man,  we  should  be  free 
ironi  those  periodical  panics  which  are  a  disgrace  to 
the  intelligence  of  a  Christian  nation. 

As  it  is,  when  suddenly  put  upon  searching  the 
reasons  of  the  faith  that  is  in  them,  men  hardly  know 
at  what  point  to  begin,  and  in  their  confusion  often 
seize  first  upon  the  weakest. 

21.  In  dealing,  either  for  the  satisfaction  of  our- 
selves or  of  others,  with  sceptical  objections,  it  is  of  vast 
importance  to  consider  in  what  order  they  are  to  be 
dealt  with.  If  we  suffer  ourselves  to  fall  into  the  error 
of  regarding  each  part  of  our  position  as  equally  strong 
in  itself,  the  consecpiences  may  prove  calamitous. 

There  are,  for  example,  narratives  of  miraculous 
occurrences  in  the  Bible,  which,  if  w^e  met  with  them 
separate  from  the  rest,  or  connected  with  documents  of 
a  different  character — if  we  found  them  in  a  life  of 
Pythagoras  or  ApoUonius — we  should  reasonably  set 
aside  as  mere  legendary  stories,  or  exaggerations  of 
purely  natural  events.  It  would  be  a  grievous  over- 
sight to  stake  the  truth  of  Christianity  at  once  upon  the 
separate  defence  of  such  passages  as  these.  The  rea- 
sonable course  is  to  waive  them  at  the  outset ; — to  let 
them  stand  over  for  consideration  in  their  due  place  ; — 
and  to  consider,  first  of  all,  the  most  important  and 
best  circumstanced  facts  upon  which  the  claims  of 
Eevelation  rest.  If  these  can  be  established,  the 
others  will  either  be  not  worth  fio^htinc:  about,  or  will 
follow  as  a  matter  of  course.  "Supposing  it  acknowl- 
edged," says  Bishop  Butler,  ''  that  our  Saviour  spent 
some  years  in  a  course  of  working  miracles ;  there  is 
no  more  presumption  worth  mentioning  against  Ilis 
having  exerted  this  miraculous  power  in  a  certain  de- 
gree greater  than  in  a  certain  degree  less ;  in  one  or 


92  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  II. 

two  more  instances,  than  in  one  or  two  fewer;  in  tliis, 
than  in  another  manner."     {Aiicdogy^  part  ii.  c.  2.) 

It  is  quite  true — and  shonhl  always  be  distinctly 
allowed — that  nervons  excitement,  the  strong  tonic  of 
a  powerful  faith  and  a  lively  imagination — perhaps  also 
some  subtle  inlluence,  such  as  animal  magnetism — are 
capable  of  producing  wonderful  cures  of  some  disor- 
ders ;  and  that,  if  some  of  the  narratives  of  miraculous 
cures  in  the  Gospel  and  the  Acts  were  all  the  miracu- 
lous narratives  relating  to  the  first  planting  of  Chris- 
tianity that  we  had,  it  might  be  reasonable  to  suppose 
the  cures  effected  by  some  such  agencies  as  these. 
But  if  other  miracles  remain  which  are  incapable  of 
any  such  solution,  and  sufficient  to  prove  the  claims  of 
Christianity  to  a  divine  origin,  then  the  natural  expla- 
nations, even  of  the  former,  cease  to  be  the  more  prob- 
able ;  because  such  natural  effects  as  they  assume, 
though  possible,  are  more  or  less  unlikely ;  whereas, 
there  is  no  improbability  in  supposing  that  a  person 
endowed  with  the  power  of  miracles  exerted  it  upon  a 
particular  occasion.  It  is  improbable  that  any  man 
ever  lived  in  Greece  of  such  strength  as  is  attributed 
to  Hercules ;  but  if  it  ^vere  once  established  that  such 
a  person  lived  at  a  given  time,  there  would  be  nothing 
iinj^robable  in  any  story  of  a  particular  exertion  of  that 
strength,  merely  on  account  of  its  surpassing  the  vigour 
of  ordinary  mortals. 

Upon  similar  principles  we  should  carefully  avoid 
entangling  the  question  of  the  general  truth  of  Chris- 
tianity with  that  of  the  nature  or  extent  of  the  inspira- 
tion of  the  sacred  writers.  There  are,  indeed,  some 
arguments  for  Christianity  which  tend  to  prove  directly 
the  inspiration,  in  some  form  or  other,  of  those  writers; 
as,  for  instance,  that  derived  from  the  omission  in  their 
works  of  to]")ics  which  men  in  their  circumstances 
would  natuvalhj  have  introduced,  an  argument  which 
has  been  pressed  with  great  force  by  the  Archbishop 
of  Dublin  in  his  first  series  of  Essays."^  But,  in  gen- 
eral, it  is  evident  that  our  first  concern  with  the  sacred 

*  See  also  Bishop  Iliad's  very  A-aluable  work  ou  Inspiration. 


Essay  II.]  EVIDENCES  OF   CIIRISTIAXITY.  g3 

■writers  is  in  tlieir  cliaracter  of  vv'itiicsscs ;  and  ^vo 
slioakl  carefully  distingnisli  in  our  minds  the  objec- 
tions against  tlieir  character  as  inspired  persons,  and 
objections  against  their  character  as  trustworthy  rela- 
tors of  facts.  The  question  of  the  nature  and  extent  of 
their  inspiration  legitimately  comes  in  after  the  main 
facts  have  been  established,  which  prove  our  Saviour's 
divine  mission,  and  the  promise  of  supernatural  assist- 
ance which  lie  made  to  His  Apostles. 

Some  parts,  indeed,  of  Scripture,  such  as  the  proph- 
ecies, claim  inspiration  directly,  and  on  the  face  of 
them ;  and  in  the  case  of  these,  to  disprove  their  in- 
spiration is  to  disprove  their  trustworthiness. 

But,  meanwhile,  in  the  interpretation  of  such  writ- 
ings, it  cannot  be  reasonable  to  put  out  of  sight  the 
character  which  they  claim,  and  insist  upon  expound- 
ing them  as  if  they  were  not  inspired  at  all.'''^  This  is 
a  principle  of  criticism  which  is  never  forgotten,  ex- 
cept in  the  case  of  Scripture.  If  the  Christian  revela- 
tion be  really  the  completion  of  the  Jewish — if  Christ 
and  His  Church  be  really  the  development  of  the  mys- 
tery of  God,  which  was  gradually  wrought  and  pre- 
pared for  in  all  the  previous  dispensations — and  if  the 
prophets  of  those  dispensations  really  "  spoke  as  they 
were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost,"  it  is  no  more  unrea- 
sonable to  give  their  lofty  expressions  a  secondary  ref- 
erence to  the  coming  glory  than  to  find  allusions  to 
Augustus  in  the  '^neid,'  or  to  Elizabeth  and  Mary  in 
the  'Faery  Queen,'  or  to  the  Roman  Republic  in  an 
ode  to  Horace's  ship.f     And,  indeed,  the  very  possi- 

*  See  'Charge  of  the  Archbishop  of  Dublin,'  1861.  Puiker  and  Son, 
London. 

t  See  Hurd  on  the  'Prophecies,'  and  Warburton's  'Divine  Legation,'  b. 
vi.  "  In  the  case  of  prophecies  with  a  double  sense,"  I  have  observed  else- 
where, "we  may  be  often  sure  of  the  secondary  application  of  some  parts  of 
them,  even  though  we  may  see  clearly  that  other  parts  have  no  such  ajiplica- 

tion Thus,  for  example,  no  one  doubts  that,  in  Spenser's  Chronicle  of 

Faery  Kings  (b.  ii.  c.  x.),  the  following  lines — 

He  left  two  ponnesa,  of  which  fair  Elfcron, 

The  eldeBt  brother,  did  untimely  die  ; 

M'/inse  euiptir  ]>lace  the  ini^lity  Olicron 

Doublij  supitlied  in  spousall  and  dominion,  ^-c. — 

lie,  dying,  left  tlie  lairest  Tanaquill 

Him  to  succeed  therein,  by  his  last  will. 

Fairer  and  nobler  livetli  none  thia  howre, 

Ne  like  in  grace,  no  like  in  learned  skill,  &,c. — 


94  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  XL 

l)ility  of  such  an  interpretation — the  continuity  of 
thought,  character,  and  plan,  in  a  literature  spread 
over  so  many  ages,  which  makes  it  feasible — has  ever 
struck  thoughtful  men,  from  Justin  Martyr  to  Pascal, 
as  strong  evidence  for  the  inspiration  of  that  literature. 
22.  But  to  pursue  these  topics  further  would  be 
only  to  repeat  what  has  been  a  thousand  times  said 
already;  and  when  iniidelity  comes  to  drop  its  reserve, 
and  tell  us  plainly  what  the  deep  objections  are  that 
are  now  only  hinted  at  in  more  'or  less  doubtful  forms 
of  insinuation,  it  will  most  probably  be  seen  that  there 
is  very  little  new  matter  to  be  produced  in  this  great 
controversy,  and  that  the  Church  is  assailed  in  tlie 
nineteenth  century  with  no  stronger  artillery  than  her 
walls  have  borne  for  eighteen  centuries  already.  j\Iy 
earnest  wish  is,  that  those  who  think  they  can  speak 
would  speak  out  and  let  us  knovv^  the  worst. 

iv  Be  (j)d€L  KoX  oXeacTov. 
And  if  the  literal  truth  of  Christianity  fall,  it  will  cer- 
tainly be  a  final  and  total  subversion  of  the  whole 
religion.  Let  no  one  suppose  that  its  spirit  can  remain 
living  and  acting  among  us  after  its  body  has  been  de- 
composed. Its  spirit  will  return  to  God  who  gave  it. 
"That  man,"  says  one  who  was  no  narrow  bigot,  "who 
does  not  hold  Christ's  earthly  life,  with  all  its  mira- 
cles, to  be  as  properly  and  really  historical  as  any 
event  in  history,  and  who  does  not  receive  all  points 
of  the  Apostolic  creed  with  the  fullest  conviction,  I  do 
not  conceive  to  be  a  Protestant  Christian.  And  as  for 
that  Christianity  which  is  such  according  to  the  fashion 
of  the  modern  philosophers  and  pantheistSj  without  a 
personal  God,  without  immortality,  without  an  individ- 
uality of  man,  without  historical  faith,  it  may  be  a 
very  ingenious  and  subtle  philosophy,  but  it  is  no 
Christianity  at  all."" 

No  one,  I  say,  doubts  that  these  lines  refer  to  Ilcnrv  VIII.  and  Queen  Eliza- 
beth, tliough  there  is  no  consistent  parallel  between"  the  succession  of  Faery 
kinnjs  and  British  monarchs." — Xote  to  JiutJcr's  Analoo?/,  p.  '203. 

To  argue  from  the  extravagant  abuse  of  types  and  double  senses  against 
their  existence,  is  like  arguing  that  if  we  adniit  iigurcs  of  speech  in  any  writ- 
ing, we  cannot  be  sure  that  anything  in  it  is  literal.. 

*  Niebulir,  quoted  by  Ncandcr  in  the  Preface  to  the  Crd  edition  of  his 
'LifoofCl.ri^t.' 


ESSAY     III 

PEOPHECY. 


CONTEXTS  OF  ESSAY  III. 


1.  Introdcction. 

2.  The  Divine  Mission  of  the  Proph- 

ets— Definition  of  the  term  "  Proph- 
et." 

3.  Definition  of  the  title  "Seer." 

4.  Definition  of  the  designation  "Man 

of  God." 

5.  Definition  of  the  phrase  "  Man  of  the 

Spirit." 

6.  Scripture  contrast  of  the  false  prophet. 

7.  The  Power    to    prepict   tub    Fu- 

TLM'.E— Popular  belief  of  the  He- 
brews. 

8.  Claims  of  the  Prophets  themselves. 

9.  Justification  of   their  claims  by  the 

fulfilment  of  their  predictions:  Ex- 
amples from  Nahum — Hosea — Amos 
— Micah — Isaiah. 

10.  Groundlessness  of  recent  insinuations 

shown  by  the  fulfilment  of  a  re- 
markable prediction  —  Untrustwor- 
thiness  of  Kationalist  criticism. 

11.  Predictions  of  Mosos  concerninsr  the 

destinies  of  Israel  not  disputed  or  ' 
explained  by  Kationalists  or  Essay-  I 
ists. 

12.  Messianic  Prophecy— The  real  qucs-  ' 


tion  at  issue:  Whether  the  New 
Testament  or  German  critics  are  to 
be  our  guides  in  interpreting  proph- 
ecy? 

13.  Variety  and  diversity  of  opinions  in 

the  German  Rationalist  School  un- 
bounded. 

14.  Doctriue  of  our  Lord  and  the  Apos- 

tles. 

15.  In  citing  or  applying  passages  of  the 

prophecies,  attention  must  be  paid 
to  the  mind  and  intention  of  the 
speaker  or  writer. 
IC.  Our  Lord,  and,  after  Ilim,  the  Apos- 
tles, lay  down  the  principle  tliat  past 
history  may  represent  that  which  is 
to  happen  hereafter. 

17.  Prophecies  which  our  Lord  and  the 

Apostles  interpret  as  specially 
spoken  in  reference  to  Christ  and 
Christianity— Belief  of  orthodox 
writers  and  Eationalist  divines  that 
Christ  claimed  to  be  the  Messiah 
foretold  by  the  Prophets. 

18.  Genuineness  of  the  Book  of  Daniel. 

19.  Genuineness  of  Isaiah  xl.-xlvi. 

20.  Interpretation  of  Isaiah  liii. 

21.  Conclusion. 


PROPHECY 


1.  Hebrew  prophecy,  like  the  Hebrew  people, 
stands  without  parallel' in  the  history  of  the  world. 
Other  nations  have  had  their  oracles,  diviners,  angurs, 
soothsayers,  necromancers.  The  Hebrews  alone  haA'e 
possessed  prophets,  and  a  prophetic  literatnre.  It  is 
useless,  therefore,  to  go  to  the  manticism  of  the  lieathen 
to  get  light  as  to  the  nature  of  Hebrew  prophecy.''^  To 
follow  the  Eabbis  of  the  twelfth  and  thirteenth  cen- 
turies is  just  as  vain.  The  only  reliable  sources  of 
information  on  the  subject  are  the  Scriptures  of  the 
Old  and  'New  Testament.  They  contain  documents 
written  when  the  voice  of  prophecy  still  was  heard, 
and  it  would  be  strange  indeed  to  interju'ct  coeval  tes- 
timonies by  theories  devised  by  heathenized  Rabbi s,t 
nearly  two  thousand  years  after  Hebrew  prophecy  had 
ceased.  Even  a  novice  in  the  study  of  the  Bible  per- 
ceives the  falsehood  of  the  Rabbinic  assertions,  that  the 
prophetic  gift  dwells  only  in  a  man  who  is  learned, 
powerful,  and  rich  ;  and  that  no  man  can  attain  to  it 
except  by  study,  combined  with  a  certain  rerpiisite 
mental  conformation.:}:  The  attempt  to  explain  pro- 
phetic inspiration  by  the  phenomena  of  animal  magnet- 
ism, seems  to  be  still  farther  removed  from  sobriety  of 

*  Yitringa,  Typus  doctr.  prnpliot.,  in  '  Obscrvationcs  Sacrjo,'  lib.  vii.  p. 
4;  Carpzov,  '  Introd.  ad  Libr.  Bibl.  V.  T.,'  Part  iii.,  p.  7  ;  Knobol,  *  Prophetis- 
mus  der  Hebriier/  i.  21 ;  C.  I.  Nitscb,  *  System  dcr  Christliclicu  Lcbre,'  p. 
88;  Thohick,  *  Die  Propbcten  und  ibre  Wcissaijjunficn,'  p.  1,  73. 

-  +  :Maimouides  and  bis  scbool,  wboni  Smitli  and  otbcrs  follow,  departed 
from  tbe  ancient  tradition,  and  endeavoured  to  remodel  Judaism  accordini; 
to  the  Greek  pbilosopby  with  which  they  became  acquainted  tbroucb  Arab 
translations.  Maimonides  himself  is  remarkable  for  bis  dotormined  cftbrt  to 
eliminate  the  supernatural  from  tbe  Old  Testament,  and  may  in  truth  be  re- 
garded as  the  father  of  Rationalist  Thcoloo;y. 

X  *  Doctor  Perploxorum,'  p.  ii.  c.  -",.  Buxtorfs  Translation,  p.  2*^1 ;  *  Ilil- 
choth  Ycsode  Hattorab,'  c.  vii.;  Salvador,  'Institutions  dc  Miiise,'  i.  p. 
192-107. 


98  AIIJS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  IIL 

judgment,  and  Cliristian  reverence.*  From  the  Old 
Testament  alone,  illustrated  by  the  Xew,  is  it  possible 
to  learn  the  nature  of  prophecy  and  the  prophetic  office. 
To  interpret  the  prophetic  writings  with  accuracy,  a 
familiar  acquaintance  with  the  original  language  is 
necessary.  But  a  correct  idea  of  the  prophet's  work 
and  office,  and  of  the  nature  of  prophecy  in  general, 
may  be  obtained  from  any  ordinary  translation  of  the 
Old  Testament  by  any  intelligent  reader.  The  student 
of  the  English  Bible  may  not  be  able  to  exjDlain  the 
meaning  of  a  rare  Hebrew  word,  or  an  obscure  and 
doubtful  passage,  nor  to  perceive  beauties  and  peculi- 
arities, observable  only  in  the  original.  He  must  also 
occasionally  miss  the  force  of  j)articular  expressions, 
and  sometimes  put  up  with  an  incorrect  rendering. 
But  he  can,  without  any  Hebrew,  understand  the  char- 
acter and  history  of  Moses  or  Elijah,  and  know  that 
Elijah  foretold  a  drought,  or  Elisha  a  sudden  plenty : 
that  Micaiah  was  a  true  prophet,  and  the  son  of  Che- 
naanah  an  impostor,  just  as  easily  and  correctly  as 
Gesenius,  or  Ewald,  or  Bunsen. 

For  this  no  modern  criticism  is  necessary,  and  in 
such  matters  no  reader  of  the  Authorized  Version  ought 
to  allow  himself  to  be  mystified  or  silenced  by  an  ap- 
peal to  foreign  critics,  much  less  to  be  disturbed  in  his 
faith,  as  if  he  could  not  apprehend  the  general  teaching 
of  the  Bible  without  profound  knowledge  of  the  Semitic 
dialects,  and  the  latest  results  of  German  criticism. 
All  these  things  are  good  in  their  place,  but  the  great 
and  essential  outlines  of  Divine  truth,  whether  in  refer- 
ence to  Deity,  or  piety,  or  morality,  or  prophecy,  are 
perceptible  without  them  ;  and  it  would^  be  just  as 
reasonable  to  assert  that  without  these  things  we  can- 
not understand  the  Ten  Commandments,  as  to  tell  the 

*  "  The  word  wbirh  wc,  after  the  LXX.,  translate  PropMs,  means  in  the 
Hebrew,  Insinved.  Their  oricjinal  desifination  was  Seers,  men  who  saw. 
Chiirvoyance  (the  so-called  magnetic  sight)  and  prophesying  in  the  ecstatic 
state  were  of  remote  antiquity  amongst  the  Jews  and  their  neighbours;  and 
Joseph,  a  man  of  a  waking  spirit,  who,  as  a  growing  )'onth,  possessed  a 
natural  gift  of  second  sight,  was  able  as  man  to  see  visions  in  bis  cup,  just  as 
the  Arab  boy  in  Cairo  still  sees  tbcm  in  bis  bowl." — liarou  Bunsen,  Gott  in 
der  Oeschic/dc,  p.  1-il. 


Essay  III.]  PEOPIIECY.  gg 

reader  of  tlie  Bible  in  the  vernacular,  that  lie  cannot 
grasp  the  scope  of  prophecy,  or  know  whether  it  has 
been  fulhlled,  until  he  has  spent  years  in  the  study  of 
Hebrew  and  of  modern  commentators.  The  essential 
features  of  prophetic  truth  are  too  boldly  drawn  to  be 
hidden  by  the  veil  of  translation,  and  have  been  as 
plain  and  visible  in  all  ages  to  the  Greek,  the  Syrian, 
and  the  Arab,  as  to  the  polyglot  critic  of  the  nine- 
teenth century.  A  knowledge  of  the  Hebrew  text, 
indeed,  enables  its  possessor  at  once  to  reject  such 
cavils  as  those  lately  revived,'^  that  the  Hebrew  words 
in  Ps.  ii.  12  for  "  Kiss  the  Son,"  ought  to  be  trans- 
lated "  Worship  purely,"  or  that  the  Hebrew  word  for 
"  pierce,"  in  Ps.  xxii.  17  ought  to  be  rendered  "  Like 
a  lion,"  or  that  in  Isaiah  ix.  6.  (Hob.  5),  the  words 
"  Mighty  God  "  ought  to  be  "A  strong  and  mighty 
one."  But  the  English  reader  still  sees  from  the  con- 
text, in  spite  of  these  alterations,  that  the  2nd  Psalm 
speaks  of  an  universal  King,  greater  than  David,  that 
the  22nd  Psalm  portrays  one  persecuted  to  deatli  by 
man,  delivered  by  God,  after  whose  deliverance  "  All 
the  ends  of  the  earth  remember  themselves  and  turn 
unto  the  Lord,"  and  that  in  Isaiah  ix.,  the  prophet 
speaks  of  a  marvellous  child,  who  is  also  "  The  Ever- 
lasting Father,  of  the  increase  of  whose  government 
there  shall  be  no  end,  to  order  and  establish  his  king- 
dom forever ; "  words  amply  sufficient  to  teach  the 
reader  that  Isaiah  spake  of  no  mere  man.f  The  Ile- 
l)rew  student  is  astonished,  in  the  present  state  of  Bib- 
lical learning,  to  sec  such  objections  resuscitated.  He 
knows  that  the  translation  "  Worship  purely "  was 
invented  by  Pabbinic  controversialists ;  that  the  ver- 
sion "  Kiss  the  Son "  is  defended  even  by  such  an 
opponent  of  Christianity  as  Aben  Ezra  amongst  the 
Ilal)bis,  and  by  De  AYette  amongst  the  Pationalists ; 
and  adopted  by  Moses  Mendelssohn,  Eiirst,  and  his 
fellow  translators,  who  have  "  Iluldigt  dcm  Solme  :  " 

*  '  Essays  and  Reviews,'  p.  OS,  09. 

t  Luther,  who  translates  "  Kraft,  Ilekl,"  had  do  doubts  as  to  the  right 
interpretation  of  the  passage 


IQQ  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Ess iY  III. 

and  that  the  ancient  Jews  interpreted  this  Psahn  of 
the  Messiah'" — that  the  rendering  "  Mi^ghty  God  "  is 
adopted  and  defended  by  Ilitzig  and  KnobeLf  But, 
without  depreciating  the  value  of  Hebrew  learning  and 
criticism,  it  may  be  safely  asserted,  that  the  nature 
and  teaching  of  prophecy  may  be  collected  from  any 
tolerable  version  :  and,  therefore,  the  Apostles,  guided 
from  above,  did  not  perplex  the  Gentiles  by  discuss- 
ing the  differences  between  the  LXX.  and  the  Hebrew 
Text,  but  wisely  used,  and  sanctioned  the  use  of  that 
Greek  Version,  which  they  found  providentially  pre- 
pared, already  partially  known  amongst  the  heathen, 
and  at  that  time  regarded  with  reverence  by  the  Jews. 
They  understood  how  Divine  Truth  may  be  appre- 
hended by  the  milearned  in  a  translation,  and  hidden 
from  the  wise  and  prudent  with  all  their  knowledge 
of  the  original.:}:  With  regard  to  Hebrew  prophecy, 
there  are  three  things  equally  perceptible  in  the  origi- 
nal and  in  the  versions,  and  at  present  specially  requir- 
ing attention.  These  are  : — the  supernatural  mission  of 
the  Prophets,  their  power  to  predict  future  events,  and 
their  announcements  of  a  coming  Saviour. 

2.  A  prophet  is  a  man  specially  called  and  sent  by 
God  to  communicate  a  Divine  revelation.§  This  is 
apparent  in  the  first  place  from  the  jiames  given  to 
tliose  Divine  messengers.     They  are  called  Froijliets^ 

*  This  is  confessed  even  by  Rashi.  in  the  lltli  century,  who  says,  "  Our 
Rabbis  interpreted  this  Psahn 'of  the  Messiah;"  to  which  was  added  in  the 
older  copies  of  his  commentary,  "But  in  order  to  answer  tlie  heretics,  it  is 
better  to  interpret  it  of  David/'  words  still  found  in  the  commentary  on  the 
xxist  Psalm. 

t  Knobcl's  reasons  for  rejecting  the  translation  "  strong  and  mighty  one, 
arc  thus  expressed :—"  Because  bx  never  occurs  as  an  adjective,  and  if  ad- 
jective, ought  to  be  after  ^isa.     The  phrase  ^liaS  bx  'mighty  God'  occurs 
X.  21.    Elsewhere  also  *Ti2a  is  adjective  to  ^X,  as  e.  g.  Dcut.  x.  17;  Jcr. 
xxxii.  18." — 'Commentary  on  Isaiah,'  p.  73. 

X  Matt.  xi.  25. 

i  Et  hue  forte  respcxenmt  Patres  ecclesinc  cum  Prophetas  OeoXoyouy, 
rerum  divinarum  consiiltos  dixere.  Ita  Pseudo-Uionysius,  cap.  8,  dc  Cool. 
Ilierarchia,  p.  95.  tuiu  QioK6yo}v  efs,  6  Zaxapias,  &,c in  quern  lo- 
cum ita  commcntatur  Pachymores,  p.  lul.  rovs  Upovs  -Kpocp-firas  QeoX6yovs 
(pTjalu,  d's  A6yovs  Qeov  i]ix7u  i^ayyiWovTas.  Carpzov,  'lutrod.  ad  Lib.  Bibl. 
V.  T.,  Part  iii.  p.  4.' 


Essay  III.]  ■   mOPIIECY.  jq^ 

secrs^  men  of  God^  men  of  the  Sjnrit.  Tlic  Hebrew 
word  for  i?ro])liet  (Nabi)  is,  according  to  its  etymology, 
supposed  by  some  to  signify  "  an  inspired  person^;* " 
by  others,  with  more  probability,  "  An  ntterer  or  an- 
nonncer."  -  Its  meaning,  and  that  of  the  Englisli  word 
jyrophet  as  used  in  the  Old  Testament,  are  fully  ex- 
plained by  a  comparison  of  two  passages,  in  the  book 
of  Exodus  :  the  first,  vii.  1,  "  See  I  have  made  thee  a 
God  to  Pharaoh,  and  Aaron  thy  brother  shall  be  thy 
prophet."  The  second,  iv.  IG,  "And  he  shall  speak 
for  thee  (A.  Y.  be  thy  spokesman),  and  thou,  thou 
shalt  be  to  him  for  a  God."  What  is  jprophet  in  the 
first  is  mouth  in  the  second.  Moses  was  to  be  as  God 
to  Aaron,  Aaron  as  prophet,  or  mouth,  or  spokesman 
to  Moses ;  Moses  to  communicate  to  Aaron,  and  Aaron 
to  declare  the  message  to  Pharaoh  and  the  people. 
According  to  this,  prophet  means  the  declarer  or  inter- 
preter of  the  Divine  will.  He  is  one  who  does  not 
speak  of  liimself  {a^  eavTov),  the  workings  of  his  own 
mind,  but  declares  the  mmd  and  will  of  God,  and 
sjDeaks  what  he  receives  from  without. f 

3.  The  title  "  Seer  ":j:  refers  rather  to  the  mode  of 
receiving  the  Divine  communication  than  to  its  utter- 
ance to  others.  It  is  derived  from  Numb.  xii.  6,  "  If 
there  be  ii  prophet  among  you,  I,  the  Loed,  will  make 
myself  known  to  him  in  a  vision  (sight,  nxna)."  The 
/See?'  is  therefore  one  who  receives  a  Divine  communica- 
tion in  a  vision.  His  vision  is  not  the  offspring  of  his 
own  mind,  but  the  Lokd  makes  himself  known  (r^.ipn) 

*  Carpzov,  *  Introd.  ad  Lib.  Bibl.  V.  T./  Part  iii.,  p.  G.  See  Gcscnius, 
'Thesaurus;'  W^inei-'s  edition  of  'Simonis  Lexicon;'  Knobel's  '  Prophetis- 
inus,'  i.  luO;  Bleck,  'Einlcitung  in  das  alte  Testament,'  p.  412;  Tlioluck, 
'Die  I'rophetcn  uud  ihic  Weissagunp;cn,'  P-  24. 

t  Heidegger  saj'S,  "  N'^iD  proprie  est  omnis  verborum  alienomm,  ex 
alieno,  non"])roprio  nutu  et  voluntatc  pronunciator,  orator,  qui,  ut  K.  1). 
Kiuichi  loquitur,  Echo  ad  instar,  nihil  profcrt  aut  ])rolatur,  nisi  quod  prius 
accepit."  'Exerc.  Bibl.'  viii.  §  27.  Augustine,  ''Nihil  aliud  esse  I'rophctani 
])ei,  nisi  enunciatorem  verborum  Dei  hominibus."  Carpzov,  ibid.,  p.  8. 
Comp.  Spinoza,  '  Tractat.  Thcolog.  Polit.'  c.  1,  \Yho  is,  with  regard  to  proph- 
ecy, more  candid  than  the  Essayists. 

X  For  this  there  arc  two  Hebrew  words  used,  but  which  arc  equivalent  in 
sense.  They  arc  both  found  in  Isui.  xxx.  10,  "  which  say  to  the  Seers  (C^Nl"") 
sec  not,  and  to  the  prophets  (lit.  Seers,  CTin)  prophesy  not  (sec  not)  unto 
us." 


2Q2  ^IDS  TO  FAITH.  [l^ss^i'  ^- 

to  the  prophet.  *  It  is  something  received  from  with- 
out. "  Her  prophets  also  find  no  vision ^/y^c*?;?.  the  Lokd 
(mni^ay  (Lam.  ii.  9).  But  the  Tvord  "  vision  "  does  not 
necessarily  imply  ecstasy  or  symbolic  representation. 
It  is  often  equivalent  to  "  The  word  of  the  Loed,"  as, 
in  1  Sam.  iii.  1,  "  The  word  of  the  Lord  was  precious 
in  those  days  ;  there  was  no  open  vision  ("pfn)."  Sam- 
uel was  a  Seer^  but  "  the  Lord  revealed  himself  to 
Samuel  by  the  word  of  the  Lord  "  (1  Sam.  iii.  21).  So 
the  first  chapter  of  Isaiah,  which  is  destitute  of  all  sym- 
bolic imagery,  is  called  "  The  vision  ("ptn)  of  Isaiah  ;  " 
whilst  the  second  chapter  has  as  its  title,  ''  The  word 
that  Isaiah,  the  son  of  Amos,  saio  (nTnV"^ 

4.  The  designation  ^'  man  of  God,  also  implies  in- 
timacy, communion  with  God,  or  commission  from 
Him,  as  the  similar  phrases,  "  men  of  David,"  "  men 
of  Hezekiah,"  meant  those  who  were  in  attendance  on 
those  monarchs,  whom  they  employed  ;  and,  in  this 
sense,  the  prophets  are  called  "  the  servants  of  Jeho- 
vah," and  "  the  messengers  of  God  "  (2  Chron.  xxxvi. 
16). 

5.  The  phrase  "  man  of  the  Spirit,  m-i  "  (Hos.  ix. 
7),  explains  the  agency  by  which  the  communication 
came,  namely,  by  the  Spirit  of  God  ;  as  St.  Peter  says, 
^'  Prophecy  came  not  at  any  time  by  the  will  of  man, 
but  holy  men  of  God  spake,  being  borne  away  {(j^epofievoi) 
by  the  Holy  Ghost "  (2  Pet.  i.  21).  The  Old  Testa- 
ment also  makes  this  impetus  of  the  Spirit  the  essence 
of  prophecy.  In  Numb.  xi.  is  related  the  appointment 
of  the  seventy  elders  to  assist  Mosea  The  Lord  says, 
"  I  will  take  of  the  Spirit  wdiich  is  upon  thee,  and  will 
put  it  upon  them  ; "  and,  accordingly,  in  the  25th 
verse,  it  is  said,  "  The  Lord  came  down  in  a  cloud,  and 
spake  unto  him,  and  took  of  the  Spirit  that  was  upon 
him,  and  gave  it  to  the  seventy  ciders  ;  and  it  came  to 
pass  that  when  the  Spirit  rested  upon  them,  they  proph- 
esied and  did  not  cease."  In  like  manner,  with  re- 
gard to  Eldad  and  Medad,  "The  Spirit  (m-in)  rested 
upon  them  .  .  .  and  they  prophesied  in  the  camp." 

*  Comp.  Ps.  Ixixix.  20 ;  Amos  i.  1 ;  Obad.  i.  1 ;  Ilab.  ii.  2,  3 ;  Nahum,  i.  1. 


Essay  III.]  PEOPHECY.  103 

That  wliicli  caused  these  two  men,  as  well  as  the  sev- 
enty elders,  to  prophesy,  was  the  resting  of  the  Spirit 
upon  them,  and,  therefore,  Moses  makes  this  resting  of 
tlie  Spirit  equivalent  to  the  gift  of  prophecy.  "  AYould 
God  that  all  the  Lokd's  people  were  prophets,  and  that 
the  LoKD  would  put  his  Spirit  upon  them."  *  From 
this  passage  alone  we  learn,  1st,  That  it  is  the  resting 
of  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  upon  a  man  that  makes  that 
man  a  prophet.  It  was  not  the  spirit  of  Moses,  but  the 
Spirit  that  was  upon  Moses,  that  was  given  to  the  sev- 
enty elders,  that  which  Moses  himself  calls  "  the  Spirit 
of  the  Lord."  "We  learn,  in  the  next  place,  that  it  is 
the  Lord  who  gives  the  Spirit.  Moses  was  not  able  to 
confer  it,  and  it  was  given  altogether  independently  of 
Moses  to  the  two  men,  not  present  at  the  tabernacle. 
The  persons  upon  whom  it  was  conferred,  did  not  choose 
themselves,  and  did  not  take  the  gift  by  their  own  will. 
Similar  instruction  is  derived  from  the  history  of  Saul. 
Samuel  (1  Sam.  x.  6)  said  to  him,  "  The  Spirit  of  the 
LoKD  w^ill  come  upon  thee,  and  thou  shalt  prophesy 
with  them  ....  and  when  they  came  thither  to  the 
hill,  behold,  a  company  of  prophets  met  him,  and  the 
Spirit  of  God  came  upon  him,  and  he  prophesied  among 
them."  It  does  not  appear  that  he  had  any  previous 
qualifications,  or  preparations,  or  training,  as  required 
by  Maimonides ;  nor  yet  his  servants  (1  Sam.  xix.  20), 
of  whom  it  is  said,  "  The  Spirit  of  God  was  upon  the 
messengers  of  Saul,  and  they  also  prophesied."  And 
so,  when  he  came  himself  on  that  occasion,  certainly  in 
no  pious  frame  of  mind,  the  Spirit  came  on  him  also, 
and  lie,  like  his  messengers,  prophesied  involuntarily. 
They  were  (pepcfievoc,  borne  away  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
just  as  the  wicked  Balaam  prophesied  when  "  the 
Spirit  of  God  came  upon  him,"  and  Caiaphas  unwit- 
tingly uttered  a  Divine  oracle  concerning  the  vicarious 
death  of  the  Lord.  ^'  And  this  spake  he  not  of  himself, 
a(/)'  eavrov,  but  being  High  Priest  that  year,  he  prophe- 
sied "  (John  xi.  51).t 

*  Compare  Joel  ii.  2^.     In  the  Ilcb.  Text,  iii.  1. 

+  Comp.  2  Sam.  xxiii.  2;  1  Kings,  xxii.  24;  2  Chron.  xxiv.  20;  Isai.  Ixi. 
1;  Jer.  i.  '.i;  Ezck.  xi.  5;  Joel  ii.  21t;  (Ilcb.  iii.  2);  Mic.  iii.  8,  kc,  &c. 


204  ^I^S  TO  FAITH.  Ll^eSAT  III. 

6.  This  view  is  confirmed  by  the  Scripture  contrast 
of  the  false  prophet.  He  is  described  as  one  who  is 
not  sent  by  the  Lord,  and  who  has  not  the  Spirit  of 
God,  but  speaks  out  of  his  own  heart  his  own  imagina- 
tions. "  They  speak  a  vision  of  their  own  heart,  and 
not  out  of  the  month  of  the  Lord  ;  I  sent  them  not,  nor 
commanded  them."*  "  They  prophesy  out  of  their  own 
hearts — they  follow  their  own  spirit,  and  have  seen 
nothing.  They  have  seen  vanity  (xnir)  and  lying  divi- 
nation, saying.  The  Lord  saith  ;  and  the  Lord  hath  not 
sent  them ;  and  they  have  made  others  to  hope  that 
they  would  confirin  (fulfil,  c-^i^b)  the  word.''  f  And, 
therefore,  even  the  Great  Prophet  of  the  Church  dwells 
frequently  iipon  the  fact  that  He  is  sent,  and  that  His 
doctrine  is  not  His  own.  "  My  doctrine  is  not  mine, 
but  His  that  sent  me.  If  any  man  will  do  His  will,  he 
shall  know  of  the  doctrine,  whether  it  be  from  God,  e/c 
Tov  Seov,  or  whether  I  speak  of  myself,  utt  e/j.avTov, 
He  that  speaketh  of  himself,  dcj)'  eavrov,  seeketh  his 
own  glory."$  As,  therefore,  a  true  prophet  is  one  who 
is  sent  by  God,  who  runs  not  of  himself,  upon  whom 
the  Spirit  of  God  rests,  who  speaks  the  word  of  God 
and  not  his  own  ;  and  as  there  were  pretenders,  whom 
God  did  not  send,  whose  words  were  not  inspired  by 
His  Spirit,  a  test,  whereby  one  could  be  distinguished 
from  the  other,  was  necessary  both  for  the  satisfaction 
of  the  prophet  himself,  and  "^for  the  protection  of  the 
people  from  imposture.  To  have  been  trained  in  the 
schools  of  the  prophets  (for  a  time  there  were  such 
schools  §)  was  not  enough  to  constitute  a  man  a  prophet. 
The  prophetic  commission  could  not  be  given  by  the 
schoolmaster,  nor  could  the  doctrines  of  men,  or  their 
instruction,  communicate  a  Divine  message,  so  as  to 

*  Jcr.  xxiii.  IG,  21,  02,  and  xiv.  14,  &c. 

+  Ezek,  xiii.  2-'.i. 

X  John  vii.  10-lS  ;  comp.  Isai,  Ixi. 

^  "  Concerning  the  origin,  arrangements,  and  duration  of  the  so-called 
schools  of  the  prophets,  no  detailed  or  circumstantial  information  is  found  in 
the  Old  Testament.  Schools  of  the  prophets  are  mentioned  only  in  the 
histories  of  the  prophets  Samuel,  Elijah,  and  Elisha,  that  is  from  llOO-tf(K), 
which  period  must  therefore  be  regarded  as  the  time  of  their  existence." 
Knobel,  Frophetismus,  ii.  39,  DO.  What  imaginative  historians  have  written 
on  this  subject  is,  therefore,  of  little  value. 


Essay  III.]  rROPnECY. 


105 


make  the  speaker's  word  the  word  of  tlie  Lord.  Neither 
Deborah  nor  Iluldah  had  tlms  received  the  prophetic 
calL  Indeed,  it  does  not  appear  that  any  of  the  great 
prophets  had  been  trained  in  those  schools.  Notliiiig 
less  than  an  outward,  clear,  unmistakable  call  of  God 
could  satisfy  the  mind  and  conscience  of  the  proj^het 
himself.  Neither  inward  persuasion,  nor  dream,  nor 
ecstasy,  was  in  itself  sufficient.  Moses  was  awake  and 
in  full  possession  of  all  his  faculties  when  he  saw  a 
bush  burning  but  not  consumed,  and  heard  the  voice 
of  the  God  of  Abraham,  and  Isaac,  and  Jacob.  Samuel 
thought  that  Eli  called,  and  went  twice  to  the  aged 
l^riest,  before  he  knew  that  it  was  the  Lord's  voice ; 
and  was,  therefore,  fully  roused  from  slumber  before 
he  received  the  Divine  message.  Isaiah's  eyes  were 
opened  to  see  the  Lord  on  his  throne,  and  his  ears  to 
hear  the  words  "  Whom  shall  I  send,  and  who  will  go 
for  us  ?  "  Jeremiah  objected  his  youth,  and  did  not 
accept  the  commission  until  the  Lord  put  forth  his 
liand  and  touched  his  mouth.  Ezekiel  felt  that  "  the 
Iiand  of  the  Lord  was  upon  him."  Amos  was  a  herds- 
man, and  a  gatherer  of  sycamore  fruit,  and  the  Lord 
took  him  "  as  he  followed  the  flock,"  and  said,  "  Go, 
prophesy  unto  my  people  Israel."  There  was  a  super- 
natural call.  A  specific  message,  also,  was  delivered, 
and  therefore  the  prophet  was  able  to  say,  "  Hear  ye 
the  word  of  the  Lord,"  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord."  Even 
after  this  external  and  supernatural  call,  every  time  the 
prophet  uttered  a  new  oracle,  it  was  the  result  of  a  new 
communication,  and  a  special  command.  He  was  still 
unable  to  prophesy  at  will.  He  might  incpiire  of  the 
Lord  and  ask  counsel,  as  Moses  did  in  the  case  of  the 
Sal)bath-breaker,  or  of  Zelophehad's  daughters,  but  had 
no  ]:>ermanent  habilitation  to  declare  the  will  of  God. 
A7ithout  this  supernatural  call,  and  without  this  spe- 
cific message,  no  one  can,  according  to  Scripture  idiom, 
without  great  confusion  of  mind,  or  wilful  and  dishon- 
est abuse  of  language,  be  said  to  possess  anything  like 
prophetic  inspiration.  The  Apostles  of  tlie  New  Testa- 
ment, called  directly  by  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  moved 
5» 


106  -^^^S   'TO    FxilTII.  [Essay  III. 

by  His  Holy  Spirit,  and  entrusted  with  a  specific  mes- 
sage, were  and  may  be  called  prophets  in  the  true  sense 
of  the  word,  for  they  were  able  to  affirm  that  the  Gos- 
pel proclaimed  of  them  was  "  not  of  man,  but  by 
revelation  of  Jesus  Christ ; "  and  they  communicated  it 
"  not  in  words,  w^hich  man's  wisdom  teacheth,  but 
which  the  Holy  Ghost  teacheth."  But  to  speak  of 
Poets,  ancient  or  modern,  or  Philosophers,  or  Lawgiv- 
ers, as  being  inspired,  like  Moses  or  Isaiah,  is  simply  to 
confound  things  Divine  and  human,  and  to  manifest 
great  mistiness  of  apprehension,  or  daring  profanity  of 
spirit.  It  is  just  as  contrary  to  Scriptural  statement,'-" 
and  as  revolting  to  Christian  reverence,  as  to  identity 
the  prophetic  character  and  calling  with  that  of  the 
demagogues  of  Greece.f  Poets  and  Philosophers  exer- 
cise the  high  natural  gifts  bestowed  by  God,  according 
to  the  movings  of  their  wdll  or  the  impulse  of  their  gen- 
ius ;  apply,  and  sometimes  abuse  them,  according  to 
the  state  of  their  hearts ;  but  do  not  pretend  to  any 
external  call  from  God,  nor  claim  for  their  words  the 
reverence  due  to  the  word  of  the  Almighty.  The  He- 
brew pro]3hets  announced  themselves  as  God's  messen- 
gers, claimed  obedience  and  reverence  for  their  message 
as  the  word  of  God,  and  therefore  carried  with  them 
credentials  for  the  satisfaction  of  the  people.  These 
credentials  were,  according  to  the  Hebrew  Scriptures, 
'miracle  and  2)7'ediction.X  To  accredit  Moses  as  His 
messenger  to  the  children  of  Israel,  He  empowered  him 

*  "At  quamvis  scicntia  naturalis  divina  sit,  ejus  tamcn  propagatores  non 
possunt  vocari  propbetae." — Spinoza,  Tractat.  Theolog.  Fvlit.  Opera,  torn.  iii. 
p.  IG. 

+  Leo  '  Vorlcsiingen,'  159, 1G8;  Berlin,  1828;  Salvador,  as  above,  p.  197. 

X  Tbis  is  admitted  even  by  D.  F.  Strauss:  "To  accredit  bis  Divine  mis- 
sion to  tbe  people,  God  enabled  Moses  to  perform  certain  acts  beyond  ordi- 
nary human  power;  and  Moses  refers  to  tbis  to  prove  that  be  did  not  come 

of  himself  but  was  sent  by  God Hand  in  hand  with  niiracle,  jivediction 

appears  in  Biblical  history  as  a  credential  of  Revelation.  Thus  in  the  Old 
Testament  God  gives  Moses  a  prediction,  the   fulfilment  of  which  should 

certify  his  Divine  mission  (Exod.  iii.  12) In  the  case  of  the  prophets  the 

occurrence  of  wonderful  events  which  they  had  predicted  is  the  proof  of  their 
Divine  commission  (1  Kings  xvii.  1,  xviii.  41,  kc).  The  prophets  also,  not 
rarely,  foretell  the  occurrence  of  some  event,  soon  to  happen,  that  its  occur- 
rence may  be  a  sign,  that  what  they  have  predicted  concerning  the  distant 
future  is  from  God  (1  Sam.  ii.  31,  x.  7,  and  1  Kings  xiii.  3,  2  Kings,  xix.  20; 
Isai.  vii.  2;  Jer.  xliv.  2ti)." — GUiubenslehre,  vol.  irp.  SG-S'J. 


Essay  III.]  rKOPIIECY.  J07 

to  malvG  three  supcrliiiman  manifestations  of  power,  say- 
ing, *'  If  tliey  will  not  believe  thee,  neither  hearken  to 
the  voice  of  the  first  sign,  that  they  will  believe  the 
voice  of  the  latter  sign."  And  therefore  the  prophet 
like  unto  Moses,  also  appealed  to  His  works  as  greater 
testimony  than  that  of  John  the  Baptist,''^  and  says, 
"  If  I  had  not  done  among  them  the  works  wliich  none 
other  man  did,  they  had  not  had  sin,  but  now  have 
they  l)otli  seen  and  hated  both  me  and  my  Father." 
The  Law  of  Moses  also  provided  another  criterion  of  a 
true  or  false  ^^ropliet,  in  the  fulfilment  or  non-fulfilment 
of  his  word,  "  When  a  prophet  speaketh  in  the  name 
of  the  Lord,  if  the  thing  follow  not,  nor  come  to  pass, 
that  is  the  thing  wdiich  the  Lord  hath  not  spoken " 
(Deut.  xviii.  22).  To  this  Jeremiah  alludes  when  he 
says,  "  The  prophet  which  prophesieth  of  peace,  when 
the  word  of  the  prophet  shall  come  to  pass,  then  shall 
the  prophet  be  known,  that  the  Lord  hath  truly  sent 
him  "  (Jer.  xxviii.  9). 

7.  To  declare  the  will  of  God,  and  deliver  His  mes- 
sage, whether  it  regarded  the  past,  the  present,  or  the 
future,  was  the  prophet's  great  dutj^  And  therefore, 
when  the  Jewish  lawgiver  was  connnunicating  moral 
or  ceremonial  precepts,  received  from  God,  and  when 
the  Messiah,  in  his  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  was  explain- 
ing the  spirituality  of  the  Law,  they  were,  in  the  strict 
sense  of  the  \voi\\^ projyhesi/mr/  just  as  much  as  when 
Moses  predicted  the  destinies  of  Israel,  and  the  Lord 
ibretold  the  destruction  and  treading  down  of  Jerusalem. 
To  have  received  a  call  and  message  direct  from  God, 
and  to  deliver  it,  constituted  the  essence  of  prophetism. 
But  if  we  are  to  form  our  idea  from  the  Scriptures,  we 
must  admit  that  the  Hebrew  people  believed  that  the 
prophets  were  endowed  with,  or  could  attain  to,  snper- 
human  knowledge,  for  the  benefit  and  advantage  of 
His  people.  Tiiis  belief  was  rooted  in  their  concej^tion 
of  the  Divine  character.  "Whether  we  take  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures  as  inspired  or  not,  it  is  an  incontrovertible 
fact  that  the  fundamental  idea  of  the  Hebrew  religion 

*  John  XV,  24 ;  comp.  Matt.  xi.  1-5. 


108  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  III. 

is  that  Jeliovali  is  a  God  avIio  reveals  Himself  to  his 
creatures;  that  He  has  not  left  the  human  race  to 
grope  their  way  to  the  regions  of  religion  or  morality 
as  they  best  can,  but  that  from  the  beginning  He  has 
taken  His  children  by  the  hand,  cared  for  their  wellare, 
made  known  to  them  His  will,  and  marked  out  for  them 
the  way  to  happiness.  This  idea  runs  through  all  the 
books  of  the  Old  Testament, — Law,  History,  Psalms, 
Prophecy, — and  is  taken  up  in  the  JSTew  Testament, 
where  is  the  fullest  revelation  of  the  love  of  our 
Heavenly  Father  to  man.  But  the  Hebrew  believed 
not  only  in  God  as  one  who  reveals  Himself  for  the 
benefit  of  the  race,  but  as  the  loving  and  watchful 
Father,  who  superintended  all  the  everyday  concerns  of 
each  individual,  and  who,  though  He  dwelt  in  tlie  high 
and  holy  place,  yet  had  regard  to  the  lowly,  and 
considered  nothing  too  small  or  insignificant  for  His 
care.  This  is  evident  in  the  prayer  of  Abraham's  ser- 
vant to  be  guided  to  Pebekah,  in  the  increase  of  Jacob's 
cattle,  in  Leah's  fruitfulness,  in  the  answer  to  Hannah's 
prayer,  not  to  mention  many  similar  and  well-known 
traits  in  the  lives  of  God's  ancient  saints.  As,  there- 
fore, the  Hebrew  peoj^le,  liigh  and  low,  regarded  the 
prophet  as  a  messenger  from  God,  enlightened  and  in- 
structed by  the  Holy  Spirit,  they  ascribed  to  him  a 
supernatural  knowledge  and  the  power  to  give  in- 
formation not  attainable  by  human  reasoning  or  sagacity 
— in  fact  the  same  power  possessed  by  the  High  Priest 
of  procuring  from  God  a  miraculous  response  by  means 
of  the  Urim  and  Thummim:  and  as  they  believed  in 
God  as  their  rath(3r,  they  trusted  that  He  was  interested 
in  all  their  troubles  and  anxieties,  and  would  not  con- 
sider tlieir  temporal  concerns  too  insignificant  for  His 
gracious  consideration.  Hence  it  is  recorded  that  Pe- 
bekah  went  to  inquire  of  the  Lord  respecting  the  subject 
of  her  anxiety.  David  inquired  of  the  Lord,  by  means 
of  the  ephod,  whether  he  should  smite  the  Philistines 
and  save  Keilah;  and  again,  whether  the  men  ofKeilah 
would  deliver  him  into  the  hands  of  Saul ;  and  received 
answers   from   the  Lord.     So  Saul's  servants  thought 


Essay  III.]  PROPilECY.  109 

they  might  go  to  Saiiiuol  and  inquire  concerning  the 
h)St  asses.  In  like  manner  King  Jehosha])liat  wished  to 
inqnire  of  the  Lord,  by  means  of  a  propliet,  before  he 
ventured  into  the  battle  against  the  Assyrians.  And 
again,  when  he  and  Jehoram  w^ere  in  dilliciilties  from 
want  of  water,  he  asked,  "Is  there  not  a  prophet  of  tlie 
Lord  here  that  wo  may  inquire  of  the  Lord  by  him  ? " 
Even  ungodly  men  like  Zedekiah  (Jer.  xxi.  2,  and 
xxxvii.  17),  and  the  elders  of  Israel  (Ezek.  xiv.  1 — T), 
or  heathens  like  king  Benhadad  (2  Kings,  viii.  7,  8,  etc.), 
believed  in  this  power,  and  were  glad,  when  occasion 
required,  to  avail  themselves  of  it.  And  there  is  not 
only  no  intimation  that  they  erred  in  making  such  in- 
quiries, but  Joshua  and  the  men  of  Israel  are  represented 
as  having  done  WTong  because  they  made  peace  with 
the  Gibeonites,  and  "asked  not  counsel  at  the  mouth 
of  the  Lord"  (Josh.  ix.  14).  And  when  Ahaziali  sent 
to  Ekron  to  inquire  of  Baal-zebub,  "  the  angel  of  the 
Lord  said  to  Elijah  the  Tishbite,  Arise,  go  up  to  meet 
the  messengers  of  the  King  of  Samaria,  and  say  unto 
them,  Is  it  not  because  there  is  not  a  God  in  Israel  that 
ye  go  to  inquire  of  Baal-zebub,  the  god  of  Ekron  ? " 
Indeed,  some  Christian  commentators  of  great  name, 
as  well  as  some  of  the  Eabbis,  think  that  in  the  Law 
God  has  made  special  provision  for  this  sort  of  inquiry 
when  He  forbids  tliem  to  be  diviners  or  consulters  with 
familiar  spirits,  and  promises  them  a  prophet  like  Moses 
to  reveal  His  will  (Dent,  xviii.  10 — 10).  It  is  certain 
tliat  Isaiah  insists  on  the  duty  of  inquiring  of  the  Lord 
when  he  says,  "And  when  they  shall  say  unto  you. 
Inquire  of  the  familiar  spirits,  and  of  wizards  who  peep 
and  mutter:  Should  not  a  people  inquire  of  their  God? 
For  the  living,  should  they  inquire  of  the  dead?" 
(viii.  19.)^- 

In  some  of  the  cases  just  mentioned  inquiry  is  made 
respecting  the  future,  and  it  is  evident  that  David  and 

*  Lowth,  and  after  him,  Knobel,  translate  the  last  clause,  "  Instead  of  the 
living  [God]  should  thoy  inquire  of  the  dead  [idols?],"  but  contrary  to  the 
parallelism.  The  prophet  is  remonstratincr  against  the  practice  of  inquiring 
of  the  spirits  of  departed  men.  "iX  is  the  spirit  of  a  dead  man,  and  there- 
fore C:\n^:  must  refer  to  something  similar. 


1X0  ^11^9  '^0  FAITH.  [Essay  III. 

Jeliosliapliat,  as  well  as  Zedekiali,  believed  that  tliroiigli 
the  priest  or  the  prophet  they  could  receive  from  God, 
respecting  contingencies,  answers  which  the  Divine  pre- 
science could  alone  sup^^ly;  that  is,  that  through  the 
Divine  help  the  priest  or  the  prophet  could  predict 
future  events.  This  faith  rested  upon  the  doctrine  of 
God  as  taught  in  the  Law,  and  exemplilied  in  the  whole 
of  their  previous  history.  Before  there  were  prophets 
God  Himself  predicted  the  future.  The  announcement 
of  the  flood  to  JN'oah  and  the  limitation  of  the  day  of 
grace  to  120  years*  are  predictions.  Noah  knew  the 
future  of  the  human  race,  and  by  the  Divine  instruction 
was  enabled  to  provide  against  the  coming  calamity. 
The  declaration,  at  a  time  when  Abraham  was  child- 
less, that  his  posterity  should  be  afflicte-d  in  a  strange 
land  for  400  years,  but  that  their  enemies  should  be 
punished  and  they  come  forth  with  great  wealth,  was 
clearly  a  prediction.  Jacob  is  represented  as  having 
on  his  death-bed  predicted  what  should  befall  his  pos- 
terity "in  futurity  of  days"  {n^^^n  ninnsn).  Joseph's 
interpretation  of  Pharaoh's  dreams  was  a  prediction  of 
the  seven  years  of  jDlenty  and  of  famine,  and  came  from 
God  as  well  as  the  dreams.  ''What  God  is  about  to  do 
he  showeth  unto  Pharaoh  "  (Gen.  xl,  28).  It  is  recorded 
of  most  of  the  prophets  mentioned  in  the  historic  books 
that  they  uttered  predictions.  Deborah  foretold  the 
fate  of  Sisera.  The  man  of  God  announced  to  Eli  the 
judgments  coming  upon  his  family,  and  the  death  of 
liis  sons  in  one  day.  Samuel  conflrmed  this  prediction 
and  declared  its  certain  fulfilment,  and  it  is  remarked 
"  that  the  Lord  let  none  of  his  words  lall  to  the  ground. 
And  all  Israel,  from  Dan  to  Beersheba,  knew  that 
Samuel  was  accredited  (or  verified  "(^xi)  for  a  prophet 
to  the  Lord."  Micaiah  foretells  the  defeat  of  the  allied 
armies  of  Judah  and  Israel,  and  rests  his  prophetic 
pretensions   upon   the   fulfilment  of  what  he  had  an- 

*  The  Avords  "Yet  his  days  shall  be  120  years"  do  not  refer  to  a  diminu- 
tion of  the  long  life  of  the  antediluvians,  nor  to  the  subsequent  measure  of 
human  life,  but  to  the  length  of  the  day  of  grace,  given  them  to  repent. 
8uch  is  the  interpretation  of  the  Targums,  Luther,  Calvin,  and  many  of  the 
best  modern  commentators.    See  Delitsch  on  Genesis,  p.  237,  8. 


Essay  IIU  PROPHECY.  m 

nounced.  ^'If  thou  return  at  all  in  peace,  the  Lord 
hath  not  spoken  by  me.  And  he  said,  Hearken,  O 
people,  every  one  of  you."  Elijah  predicted  that  there 
should  bo  no  rain  but  according  to  his  word,  the  death 
of  Jezebel,  the  extermination  of  Ahab's  posterity. 
Elisha  foretold  the  overthrow  of  the  Moabites,  the  three 
defeats  of  the  Syrians.  All  these  things,  as  well  as  the 
birth  of  Josiah,  and  tlie  continuance  of  Jehu's  posterity 
on  the  throne  of  Israel  to  the  fourth  generation,  are  re- 
lated as  predictions,  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the  word, 
— as  supernatural  communications  from  the  Lord,  and 
the  fulfilment  specially  noticed. 

It  may  indeed  be  said,  and  has  been  said,  that  these 
predictions  and  the  narratives  connected  with  them  are 
mythical  narrations,  written  after  the  events  when  the 
historic  substrata  had  had  time  to  be  transmuted  into 
the  supernatural.  But  that,  if  true,  would  not  alter  the 
fact  that  the  Hebrews  believed  in  the  power  of  the 
prophets  to  predict  events  by  supernatural  aid  from  on 
high ;  that  this  belief  is  inseparably  connected  with 
their  ideas  of  the  Divine  Being,  and  everywhere  visi- 
ble in  the  historical  books  from  Genesis  to  JSTehemiah ; 
in  fiict  that  the  power  of  predicting  future  events  is 
one  of  the  essential  features  in  the  character  of  a 
prophet.  And  as  it  is  incontrovertibly  a  part  of  the 
])opular  belief,  so  it  is  the  doctrine  of  the  prophets 
themselves,  as  recorded  in  their  writings.  It  is  hardly 
possible  to  open  a  page  of  any  book  of  the  prophets  on 
which  there  is  not  a  prediction.  "  By  far  the  greatest 
portion  of  the  prophetic  discourses  consists  in  delinea- 
tions of  the  future,  or  predictions  referring  partly  to  the 
Jehovah  people,  and  therefore  to  the  kingdoms  of  Israel 
and  Judali,  partly  to  foreign  nations  who  came  in  con- 
tact with  the  Hebrews,  ....  partly  to  individuals  of 
the  former,  seldom  of  the  latter."-  Amos  lays  it  down 
as  an  axiom  that  the  Lord  reveals  to  the  pro]:)hets  his 
purposes  before  they  are  realized.  "  Surely  the  Lord 
God  will  do  nothing,  but  he  revealeth  his  secret  (1110) 
to  his  servants  the  prophets."    (Amos  iii.  7.)     Upon 

*  Knobcl's  *  Prophetismus,'  i.  293. 


212  -^^I^S  TO  TAITH.  [Essay  II  t. 

wliicli,  Hitzig  says  :  "The  prophet  predicts  the  coming 
evil,  which  is  always  an  ordinance  of  Jehovah ;  for 
Jeliovah  makes  him  acquainted  beforehand  with  that 
which  He  has  decreed."  Isaiah  makes  the  prediction 
of  future  events  a  distinguishing  characteristic  and  pre- 
rogative of  Deity,  and  therefore  a  proof  that  the  God 
of  Israel  is  the  true  and  living  God.  "  Remember  the 
former  things  of  old :  for  I  am  God  and  there  is  none 
else :  I  am  God,  and  there  is  none  like  me.  Declaring 
futurity  (n^nnx)  from  former  time,  and  from  ancient 
times  the  things  that  are  not  yet  done  "  (xlvi.  9,  10) ; 
upon  wdiich  words  Knobel  thus  comments  :  "  The  bet- 
ter view  consists  in  the  knowledge  that  Jeliovah,  and 
none  besides,  is  God,  that  He  is  God  and  nothing  like 
Him.  To  this  view  they  can  easily  come  by  remem- 
bering the  former  things,  that  is,  the  prophecies  for- 
merly given,  which  are  now  being  fulfilled  (xlii.  9). 
These  prove  Jehovah's  foreknowledge,  and  thereby 
His  Godhead."  In  like  manner  Isaiah  makes  the 
w^ant  of  predictions  amongst  idolaters  a  proof  that 
their  gods  are  no  gods.  "  Produce  your  cause,  bring 
forth  your  strong  reasons,  saith  the  King  of  Jacob. 
Let  them  bring  them  forth,  and  show  us  what  shall 
happen :  Let  them  show  the  former  things  what  they 
be,  that  we  may  consider  them  and  know  the  latter 
end  of  them ;  or  declare  for  us  things  for  to  come. 
Show  the  tilings  that  are  to  come  hereafter,  that  w^e 
may  know  that  ye  are  gods  "  (xli.  21-23) ;  where  Gese- 
nius  says,  "A  new  challenge  to  the  idols  as  in  verse  1, 
&c.,  again  with  a  reference  to  Cyrus,  but  also  with  a 
reference  to  former  predictions  of  the  prophets,  such  as 
the  heathen  had  none  to  sIioav."  Knobel's  words  are 
still  stronger :  "  Let  them  bring  forth  their  proofs, 
especially  that  one  which  rests  upon  correct  j^rediction 
of  the  future ;  for  the  foreknowledge  of  the  future  is 
the  peculiar  attribute  of  God,  and  proves  Deity,  on 
which  account  it  was  also  the  credential  of  the  true 
prophet.  (Deut.  xviii.  21.  Jer.  xxviii.  9.)  And,  on  the 
contrary,  the  idols  never  were  able,  nor  are  they  now, 
to   announce   the   future.      They   sliould   declare    the 


Essay  III]  PEOPIIECY.  113 

tilings  to  come  hereafter,  that  is,  what  shouhl  after- 
ward happen,  and  Jehovah  w^ill  see  and  recognise  that 
they  are  gods,  namely,  when  their  prediction  is  accom- 
plished."^ In  these  places,  and  many  more,  it  is  tanght 
that  Jehovah  gives  predictions  to  His  servants  the 
prophets,  and  also  that  lie  fulfils  them.  "He  con- 
firmeth  the  w^ord  of  His  servants,  and  performeth  the 
counsel  of  His  messengers"  (Isai.  xliv.  26) ;  that  by  so 
doing  He  proves  not  only  that  the  prophets  are  true 
prophets,  but  that  He  Himself  is  tlie  true  God.  We 
have  in  fact  the  same  proof  of  the  truth  of  Divine  Eev- 
elation  that  has  been  nrged  in  modern  times  from  ful- 
filled prophecy,  and  which  has  the  highest  possible 
sanction  in  the  words  of  our  Lord,  "And  now  I  have 
told  yon  before  it  come  to  pass,  that  when  it  is  come 
to  pass  ye  might  believe."  (John  xiv.  29 :  comp.  xiii. 
9,  and  xvi.  4.) 

8.  It  is  evident  that  the  Hebrew  people  believed 
that  their  prophets  could  predict  the  future.  The 
prophets  themselves  afifirm  that  they  have  the  power 
and  ntter  predictions.  Were  they  impostors,  or  did 
they  deceive  themselves?  That  they  were  impostors, 
is  not  believed  by  those  Eationalists  who  have  given 
most  attention  to  this  snbject,  as  Gesenius,  Ewald,  and 
Knobel,  and  is  disproved  by  their  doctrine  and  their 
life.  Concerning  God  they  teach  that  He  is  One,  the 
Lord,  Creator  of  the  heavens  and  the  earth,  Everlast- 
ing, Almighty,  Omniscient,  Free,  All  wise,  Holy,  a 
righteous  Judge,  a  merciful  Saviour,  the  Governor  of 
tlie  w^orld,  forgiving  iniqnity  and  sin."  Their  notion 
of  the  religion  acceptable  to  Him  is  also  equally  free 
from  fanaticism  and  formality.  They  denounce  those 
who  "  draw  near  to  God  with  their  lips,  bnt  remove 
their  heart  fiir  from  Him."  They  teach  that  to  reform 
the  life  is  better  than  external  demonstrations.  "To 
wdiat  purpose  is  the  multitude  of  your  sacrifices?  .  .  . 
Wash  you;  make  you  clean;  put  away  the  evil  of 

*  See  Isai.  xl.  28,  xlir.  6;  Jer.  x.  10,  xxiii.  23,  24;  Isai.  xiv.  24r,  27  ;  Jer. 
xxxii.  19,  xvii.  10 ;  Hab.  i.  13  ;  Mai.  ii.  10  ;  Isai.  Ixiv.  8 ;  Jer  xi.  20 ;  Joel  ii. 
1-3;  Mic.  vii.18;  Dau.  ii.  28;  Ezek.  xxxi.  'j;  Amos  lii.  6;  Lzek.  xviu.  4;  Uos. 
xiii.  14,  &c.,  &c. 


114  -^^^S  TO  FxVITII.  [Essay  III. 

your  doings  from  before  mine  eyes ;  cease  to  do  evil, 
learn  to  do  well ;  seek  judgment,  relieve  the  oppressed ; 
judge  the  fatherless;  plead  for  the  widow"  (Isaiah  i. 
11 — IT).  "I  will  have  mercy,  not  sacrifice."  They 
proclaim  that  honesty,  mercy,  and  humility  are  the 
weightiest  matters  of  the  Law.  "  What  doth  the  Lord 
require  of  thee,  but  to  do  justly,  and  to  love  mercy, 
and  to  walk  humbly  with  thy  God  ? "  (Mic.  vi.  8.)  to 
preach  such  doctrine  was  their  business ;  and  boldly 
to  reprove  all  who  lived  in  opposition  to  it,  whether 
kings,  or  priests,  or  people,  was  their  practice,  and  this 
without  fee  or  reward,  for  they  received  nothing  for 
their  prophesying,  but  often  exposed  themselves  to 
persecution  and  death.  They  sought  not  wealth,  or 
honour,  or  favour,  or  ease.  They  were  temperate,  self- 
denying,  patient,  valiant  for  the  truth,  leaning  upon 
God  as  their  stay,  and  looking  to  God  alone  for  their 
reward.  They  were  neither  morose  ascetics,  nor  un- 
lettered fanatics.  Married  and  livino^  amono-st  the 
people,  in  cottages  and  m  courts,  they  discharged  the 
ordinary  duties  of  citizens.  They  cultivated  letters, 
and  have  left  a  literature  unique  in  the  history  of  the 
world;  if  judged  according  to  a  human  standard,  un- 
surpassed in  genius,  sublimity,  grandeur ;  but  in  purity 
and  morality  unequalled  by  any  nation  in  any  age. 
This  jDrojohetic  order  beginning,  if  reckoned  from  Sam- 
uel, nearly  400  years  before  the  birth  of  Rome,  and 
closing  when  the  bloom  of  Grecian  genius  was  only 
appearing,  is,  when  compared  with  the  state  of  the 
world  around  them,  a  phenomenon  as  wonderful  as  the 
power  of  prediction  which  they  claimed.  The  best 
days  of  Greece  and  Itome  can  furnish  no  heroes,  pa- 
triots, or  moral  teachers  to  compare  with  this  long  and 
wonderful  succession  of  holy,  disinterested,  bold  re- 
provers of  vice  and  preachers  of  virtue,  unambitious 
examples  of  genuine  patriotism,  living  for  the  glory  of 
God,  and  the  good  of  man ;  whose  writings  are  so  im- 
bued with  ini])erishable  and  universal  truth,  that  for 
nearly  twenty-four  centuries  after  the  death  of  the  last 
r-i  the  goodly  fellowship,  they  have  continued  and  still 


Essay  III.]  rEOPIlECY.  II5 

continue  to  toucli  the. hearts,  and  influence  the  faith, 
the  thouglits  and  lives  of  the  wisest,  greatest,  and  most 
excellent  of  the  human  race.  That  such  men  could  be 
deceivers,  or  that  imposture  could  have  exercised  a 
power  so  enduring,  is  impossible.  That  thej  could 
have  been  self-deceiving  enthusiasts  is  equally  incredi- 
ble. Neither  their  doctrine,  nor  their  lives,  nor  their 
writings  savour  of  enthusiasm,  nor  can  they  be  ac- 
counted for  as  mere  ebullitions  of  genius.  AVhy  did 
not  the  poetic  inspiration  and  colossal  intellect  of 
Greece  produce  similar  results?  AVhy  did  not  Eurip- 
ides prophesy?  Why  did  Plato  never  rise  to  moral 
purity  ?  ^  "It  is  because  of  the  theocracy,"  say  modern 
diviners.  Moses  founded  a  theocracy,  and  prophetism 
was  the  necessary  result.  But  this  is  oidy  to  remove 
the  difficulty  one  step  farther  back.  Why  did  not  the 
Spartan,  or  Athenian,  or  Locrian  lawgivers,  or  the 
royal  disciple  of  Egeria  found  a  theocracy  like  that  of 
Moses?  Why  did  not  their  legislations  bring  forth 
prophets  ?  In  a  certain  sense  prophecy  did  arise  out 
of  the  original  relation  established  between  God  and 
Israel.  The  same  Divine  Being,  who  commanded  the 
theocracy,  gave  also  the  prophets,  inspired  them  with 
their  doctrines,  revealed  to  them  the  future,  and  ena- 
bled them  to  utter  2:>redictions  far  beyond  the  powers 
of  human  foreboding,  sagacity,  or  conjecture,  which  by 
their  fulfilment,  of  old  and  in  the  present  time,  demon- 
strate that  they  were  not  self-deceiving  enthusiasts,  but 
spake  as  they  were  moved  by  Him  who  knows  the 
end  from  the  beginning. 

0.  It  has  indeed  been  Sc^id  by  foreign  writers,  and 
lately  repeated  in  this  country,  that  the  predictions 
arose  out  of  the  circumstances  of  the  days  in  which  the 
prophets  lived,  and  do  not  extend  be3^ond  the  horizon 

*  Of  all  the  great  writers  of  antiquity  Plato  is  the  most  striking  witness 
to  the  corruption  of  fallen  human  nature,  and  the  propensity  of  the  grandest 
intellect,  when  left  to  itself,  to  extenuate  the  foulest  and  most  odious  vice. 
In  nothing  does  the  sui)eriority  of  Hebrew  ethics  shine  out  more  brightly. 
See  Wuttke,  *  Handbuch  der  Christlichen  Sittenlehre,  pp.  T)")-!)?.  At  the 
same  time  the  mercy  inculcated  in  the  prophets  may  be  favourably  contrasted 
with  the  Greek  doctrine  couceruiug  slaves,  incurables,  cripples,  exposure  of 
children,  abortion,  suicide,  &c. 


IIQ  AIDS  TO  FAIXn.  [Essay  IIL 

of  their  times.  The  interpreter »" cannot  quote  IS^ahnni 
denouncing  ruin  against  Nineveh,  or  Jeremiah  against 
Tyre,  without  remembering  tliat  ah*ead j  the  Babylonian 
power  threw  its  shadow  across  Asia,  and  Nebuchad- 
nezzar was  mustering  his  armies."  *  Some  foreign 
critics,  though  in  the  same  spirit,  take  a  different  view 
of  the  occasion  of  Nahum's  prophecy,  ascribing  it  to  an 
attempt  by  the  Medes  and  their  eastern  allies.  ''  This 
is  the  remarkable  expedition,"  says  Ewald,  speaking 
of  the  Medes  and  their  oriental  confederates  under 
Phraortes,  "which  JSTahum  saw  with  his  own  eyes, 
when,  predicting  the  approaching  end  of  Nineveh,  he 
wrote  his  still  extant  oracle ;  he  lived  in  Alqush,  some- 
what farther  east  of  the  Tigris,  and  was  therefore  able, 
in  that  place,  to  see  the  whole  host  as  it  advanced 
against  Nineveh."  f  The  latter  supposition,  that  Na- 
hum  lived  near  Nineveh,  is  for  good  reasons  rejected 
by  Knobel,  who  affirms  that  he  lived  at  Elkosh  in  Gali- 
lee, and,  therefore,  did  not  see  the  Median  power  ad- 
vancing against  the  Assyrian  capital.  With  regard  to 
the  relative  strength  of  the  Babylonian  and  Median 
powers  in  comparison  with  that  of  the  Ass^^'ian  empire 
at  that  time,  there  was  nothing  to  lead  the  prophet  to 
anticipate  that  either  the  one  or  the  other  was  able  to 
take  Nineveh,  or  overthrow  the  Assyrian  monarchy, 
but  the  contrary.  According  to  Knobel,  who,  in  the 
eyes  of  Rationalists,  is  an  unexceptionable  w^itness, 
Nahnm  wrote  this  prophecy  between  the  years  713 
and  711  e.g.  Nineveh  was  not  overthrown  nntil  about 
612.  if  Just  about  the  time  when  Nahum  wrote,  or, 
according  to  others,  three  or  four  years  §  later,  the 
Medes  under  Deioces  revolted  from  the  Assyrians,  and 
set  up  an  independent  monarchy.  Their  power  at  that 
time  could  not  have  been  very  formidable,  for  fifty 
years  later,  when  tlie  Median  empire  had  been  consoli- 

*  '  Essays  and  Reviews,'  p.  6S. 

t  '  Gcsciuchte  Israel's,'  iii.  SS'.t.     See  also  Knobcl's  *  Prophetismus,'  ii.  212. 

X  According  to  Prideuux;  but  according  to  Usher,  G26.  Weber  (' Welt- 
geschichte,'  i.  47)  places  the  total  destruction  of  Nineveh  in  T.OG. 

§  According  to  Knobel,  the  Medes  revolted  in  the  years  immediately  pre- 
ceding YIO,  and  made  Deioces  king,  and  he  reigned  from  710  on.  Conip.  M. 
von  Nicbuhr,  'Gcschichtc  Assur's  und  Babel's,'  pp.  177,  178. 


Essay  III.]  PEOPIIECV.  jj/^ 

dated  by  tlie  long  and  wise  government  of  Deioces,  it 
was  still  unable  to  cope  with  tlie  Assyrians,  by  whom 
their  army  was  utterly  defeated,  their  king  slain,  and 
their  capital  taken.  The  effort  of  Fhraortes  was  equally 
unsuccessful,  and  therefore  Ilitzig  says,  "  The  attack 
of  Phraortes  is  not  a  sufficient  ground  [for  the  confident 
tone  of  the  prophecy].  The  Assyrians  destroyed  him 
and  his  whole  host.  The  capital,  which  Ewald  sup- 
poses to  have  been  vigorously  besieged,  does  not  appear 
to  have  been  approached  by  any  danger  of  the  kind."  '^ 
The  Babylonians  were  just  as  little  a  match  for  the 
Assyrians,  for,  some  fifty  years  before,  Esarhaddon  had 
seized  Babylon,  and  reunited  it  to  the  Assyrian  monar- 
chy, f  When,  then,  l^ahum  wrote,  the  shadow  of  the 
Babylonian  or  Median  power  was  not  such  as  to  cause 
much  alarm  for  the  existence  of  Nineveh.  Notwith- 
standing the  loss  of  an  army  of  185,000  men,  the  As- 
syrian power  was  still  the  greatest  in  the  world  ;  and 
whilst  it  was  still  the  greatest,  whilst  the  kingdom  of 
Babylon  was  still  so  inferior  as  to  be  unable  to  under- 
take anything  against  it  by  itself,  and  was  therefore 
glad  to  seek  the  alliance  of  Hezekiah,  one  hundred 
years  before  the  event,  Nahum  predicted  the  siege  and 
utter  destruction  of  Nineveh.  "  And  it  shall  come  to 
pass,  that  all  they  that  look  upon  thee  shall  flee  from 
thee,  and  say,  Nineveh  is  laid  waste  .  .  .  The  gates  of 
thy  land  shall  be  set  wide  open  unto  thine  enemies ; 
the  fire  shall  devour  thy  bars.  Draw  the  waters  for 
the  siege,  fortify  thy  strong  holds ;  go  into  clay,  and 
tread  the  mortar,  make  strong  the  brickkiln.  There 
shall  the  fire  devour  thee:  the^sword  shall  cut  thee  off, 
it  shall  eat  thee  up  like  the  cankerworm  !" :}:  Can  any 
of  those  men  who  now  assert  that  this  pro]:ihecy  was  a 
mere  conjecture,  tell  us  what  will  be  the  late  of  Paris 
or  London  one  hundred  years  hence?  They  deny  the 
miracle  of  supernatural  foreknowledge,  and  believe 
what   is  more  incredible  far;  that  unassisted  human 

*  Ilitzlg's  'Minor  Prophets,'  p.  225.     Comp.  von  Xiobiihr,  pp.  IR*?,  IRO, 
t  According  to  Nicbuhr,  Sennacherib  seized  Uabylou,  aud  made  Esarhad- 
don viceroy,  ])p.  177,  8. 
+  Nahum  iii.  7,  14,  15. 


118  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Ess>t 'IL 

knowledge  can  lift  the  veil  from  futurit}-,  and  2)resage 
tlie  destinies  of  empires.  ISTalinm  is,  however,  not  the 
only  ])ropliet  who  nttered  predictions  concerning  the 
Assyrians.  "  Assur  had  not  yet  passed  the  Euphrates 
as  a  conqueror,  and  the  victorious  Jeroboam  still  reigned 
in  the  kingdom  of  Israel,  when  the  prophetic  voice  of 
Hosea  and  Amos  already  threatened  their  countrymen 
Avith  the  scourge  of  Assyria.  (Amos  vi.  l-i,  vii.  17; 
Hos.  X.  7,  8,  xiv.  1.)  Some  years  before  the  fall  of 
Samaria,  Micali  uttered  these  words : — "  What  is  the 
guilt  of  Jacob,  is  it  not  Samaria?  And  what  are  the 
idol-high  places  of  Judah,  are  they  not  Jerusalem? 
Therefore  I  wdll  make  Samaria  as  an  heap  of  the  Held, 
and  as  plantings  of  a  vineyard :  and  I  w^ill  pour  down 
the  stones  thereof  into  the  valley,  and  I  will  discover 
the  foundations  tliereof."  But  for  three  years  the  As- 
syrian w^as  obliged  to  lie  before  the  well-fortified  city 
before  it  fell.  Concerning  Judali  also  Micah  uttered 
the  oracle: — 'Evil  came  down  from  the  Lord  to  the 
gate  of  Jerusalem,'  *  and  thereupon  begins  the  an- 
nouncement of  the  desolation  of  particular  country 
towns  of  Judea.  But  at  that  time  Shalmaneser  passed 
by  tlie  kingdom  of  Judah  in  peace,  and  Hezekiah  con 
tinned  to  pay  his  tribute.  It  was  not  until  the  throne 
had  got  a  new  occupant  in  Sennacherib  that  he  ceased 
to  do  so,  and  thus  brought  the  Assyrian  host  before  the 
gates  of  Jerusalem,  and  caused  the  fulfilment  of  the 
prophecy.  But  long  before  this,  when  the  unbelieving 
Ahaz  called  upon  Tiglath  Pileser  for  help  against  Syria 
and  Israel,  Isaiah,  with  prophetic  eye,  looking  far  be- 
yond the  then  present,  announced  to  him  that  through 
tlie  King  of  Assyria  danger  should  come  upon  him,  and 
his  father's  house,  and  his  people,  such  as  had  not  been 
since  the  division  of  the  kingdoms.  (Isai.  vii.  17,  18.) 
Ahaz  himself  sank  into  a  state  of  disgraceful  Assyrian 
vassalage,  and,  perhaps,  even  experienced  the  horrors 
of  war  in  his  own  land.     (2  Chron.  xxviii.  20.)     But  in 

*  He  might  have  added,  "0  thou  inhabitant  of  Lachish,  bind  the  chariot 
to  the  swii't  boast;  she  is  the  beginning  of  the  sin  to  the  daughter  of  Zion  j 
for  the  transgressions  of  Israel  were  found  iu  thee." 


Essay  III.]    •  PllOPIIECY.  Hq 

the  clays  of  Hezekiali  the  word  of  the  ]>rophet  was  ful- 
filled in  full  measure  by  Sennacherib."* 

But  the  accuracy  of  Micah's  language  and  of 
Isaiah's  prophetic  foreknowledge  are  worthy  of  atten- 
tion. Micah  foretells  utter  destruction  to  Samaria;  to 
Judali  only  chastisement,  which  should  reach  to  the 
gate  of  Jerusalem,  but  no  farther.  "  For  it  is  incura- 
ble, every  one  of  her  blows — it  (the  blow)  is  come  to 
Judah.     lie  hath  reached  (i'^is  touched,  or  smitten)  as 

far  as  the  gate  of  my  people,  to  Jerusalem For 

the  inhabitant  of  Maroth  waited  carefully  for  good  ;  but 
evil  came  down  from  the  Lord  to  the  gate  of  Jerusalem. 
O  thou  inhabitant  of  Lachish,  bind"  the  chariot  to  the 
swift  beast."  From  the  history  it  appears  that  the 
word  of  Micah  was  exactly  fulfilled.  ''In  the  four- 
teenth year  of  King  Ilezekiah,  Sennacherib  King  of 
Assyria  came  np  against  all  the  defenced  cities  and 
took  them  [Lachish  among  the  number].  And  the 
King  of  Assyria  sent  Kabshakeh  from  Lachish  to  Jeru- 
salem with  a  great  army."  (Isaiah  xxxvi.  1,  &c.)  The 
land  of  Judah  was  overrun ;  the  evil  reached  even  to 
the  gate  of  Jerusalem,  for  the  city  was  invested ;  but, 
in  conformity  with  Micah's  words,  it  never  entered  the 
city — the  Assyrian  power  was  broken,  and  the  king 
returned  by  the  way  he  came,  as  Isaiah  had  foretold. 
There  is  no  doubt  about  the  predictions,  or  the  Tact  that 
they  were  uttered  before  the  event,  nor  yet  about  the 
fulfilment.  In  the  time  of  Ahaz,  Isaiah,  who  had  also 
foretold  the  chastisement  to  be  infiicted  on  Judah  by 
the  Assyrians,  expressly  announced  a  miraculous  de- 
struction of  the  Assyrian  host.  "  Therefore  shall  the 
Lord,  the  Lord  of  Hosts,  send  among  his  fiit  ones  lean- 
ness ;  and  nnder  his  glory  lie  shall  kindle  a  burning 
like  the  burning  of  a  fiVe.  And  the  light  of  Israel  shall 
be  for  a  fire,  and  his  Holy  One  for  a  flame :  and  it  shall 
burn  and  devour  his  briers  in  one  day  ;  and  shall  con- 
sume the  glory  of  his  forest  and  of  his  fruitful  field  both 
soul  and  body,  and  they  shall  be  like  the  pining  away 
of  a  sick  man,"  <fcc.      (Isai.  x.  16-19.)      And,  again, 

*  Tholuck,  '  Die  Propbeten  und  ihre  Wcissagungcn,'  pp.  83,  84. 


120  ^ID3  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  III. 

XXX.  27-32,  Isiiiali  also  predicts  that  tlie  Assyrian  shall 
be  broken  in  his  land  at  least  thirty  years  before  tlie 
event.  That  the  Assyrian  power  should  be  broken  was 
then  improbable  ;  that  it  should  be  broken  on  the 
mountains  of  Judah  more  improbable  still,  beyond 
human  conjecture,  and  yet  it  was  accomplished.  The 
prediction  'is  found  Isai.  xiv.  2^ — 27.  "Th-eLordof 
Hosts  hath  sworn,  saying.  Surely  as  1  have  thought,  so 
shall  it  come  to  pass ;  and  as  I  have  purposed  so  shall 
it  stand:  that  I  will  break  the  Assyrian  in  my  laud, 
and  upon  my  mountains  tread  him  nnder  foot:  then 
shall  his  yoke  depart  from  off  them,  and  his  burden  de- 
part from  off  their  shoulders.  This  is  the  purpose  that 
is  purposed  npon  the  whole  earth ;  and  this  is  the  hand 
that  is  stretched  out  upon  all  nations,  for  the  Lord  of 
Hosts  hath  purposed,  and  who  shall  disannul  it  ?  And 
his  hand  is  stretched  out,  and  who  shall  turn  it  back? " 
Modern,  even  sceptical,  criticism  assigns  this  fragment 
to  Isaiah,  and  considers  it  as  a  part  of  the  prophecy 
beginning  at  x.  5,  and  going  on  to  the  end  of  chapter 
xii.  The  wording  is  remarkable.  It  implies  miracle, 
and  by  miracle  the  Assyrian  host  was  destroyed :  the 
fulfilment  is  not  only  narrated  in  the  history,  but  re- 
corded in  several  Psalms,  and  von  ISTiebuhr  shows  how, 
notwithstanding  the  continuance  of  Sennacherib's  em- 
pire, and  its  prosperity  under  Esarhaddon,  the  Assyr- 
ian ])ower  w^as  then  really  "  broken." 

With  regard  to  Assyria's  successor,  Babylon,  there 
are  predictions  equally  sure.  That  one  hundred  and 
fifty  years  before  the  event,  the  Babylonian  captivity 
Vv^as  foretold  in  the  most  unequivocal  and  remarkable 
language  by  Isaiah,  is  as  certain  as  any. fact  in  history. 
In  the  xxxixth  chapter  of  that  prophet  we  read  tliat  on 
Hezekiah's  recovery  Merodach  Baladan,  Xing  of  Baby- 
lon, sent  to  congratulate  him.  Ilezekiah  vainglorious- 
]y  exhibited  to  him  all  his  wealth.  Isaiah  was  soon 
at  hand  to  rebuke  his  vanity,  and  announced  the  Lord's 
purpose  concerning  Hezekiah's  posterity.  "  Hear  the 
word  of  tlie  Lord  of  Hosts :  Behold  the  days  come, 
that  all  that  is  in  thine  liouse,  and  that  which  tliy 


Essay  III.]  PEOrnECY.  121 

fiitliers  have  laid  up  in  store  nntil  this  day,  shall  be 
carried  to  Babylon  :  nothing  shall  be  left,  saith  the 
Lord.  And  of  thy  sons  that  shall  issue  from  thoe, 
which  thou  slialt  beget,  shall  they  take  away :  and 
they  shall  be  eunuchs  in  the  palace  of  the  King  of 
Babylon."  It  is  certain  that  Nabonassar  had  shaken 
off  the  Assyrian  yoke,  and  made  Babylon  an  in- 
dependent kingdom,  and  that  some  twelve  years  after 
his  death  reigned  Merodach  Baladan.'--  The  genuine- 
ness of  the  chapter  in  Isaiah  has  never  been  doubted. 
The  circumstiinces  of  Babylon  were  not  then  such  as 
to  raise  any  conjecture  respecting  its  future  greatness. 
It  was  independent,  but  not  superior  to  Assyria ;  on 
the  contrary,  as  we  have  already  said,  Babylon  was 
soon  after  reduced  again  to  Assyrian  obedience. 

Micah  also  predicted  tha  captivity  and  the  deliver- 
ance from  Babylon.  Cli.  ii.  10,  he  says,  "Arise  ye  and 
depart:  for  this  is  not  your  rest :  Because  it  is  polluted 
it  shall  destroy  you  even  with  a  sore  destruction  ; "  iii. 
12,  he  announces  that  Jerusalem  shall  be  ploughed  as 
a  Held,  Jerusalem  become  heaps,  and  the  temple  and 
its  place  be  desolate ;  iv.  10,  he  says,- "  Thou  shalt  go 
forth  out  of  the  city,  thou  shalt  dwell  in  the  field,  and 
thou  shalt  go  even  to  Babylon:  there  shalt  thou  be 
delivered  :  there  the  Lord  shall  redeem  thee  from  the 
hand  of  thine  enemies."  This  prediction  is  the  more 
remarkable,  because,  as  wc  have  seen,  he  predicts  the 
overrunning  of  the  land  of  Judah  by  the  Assyrians, 
declares  that  the  evil  should  only  come  to  the  gate  of 
Jerusalem ;  and  v.  5,  G,  foretells  the  deliverance  in  the 
land  of  Israel.  "  This  one  n-j  [the  Messiah,  the  Son  of 
God]  shall  be  the  peace,  when  the  Assyrian  shall  come 
into  our  land,"  and  announces  the  wasting  of  the  land 
of  Assyria,  f  lie  could  not,  therefore,  have  expected 
that  Assyria  was  to  bring  them  to  Babylon ;  and  still 
less  that  at  Babylon  they  should  be  delivered.  Micah 
prophesied  before  the  destruction  of  Samaria,  i.e.  be- 
fore 724,  that  is,  about  a  hundred  and  forty  years 
before  the  destruction  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  and  con- 

*  Nicbuhr,  pp.  40,  47,  and  109.  +  Mic.  i.  0,  ii.  4,  r.,  10,  vii.  13. 

G 


122  ^I^S  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  III. 

seqiiently  jiboiit  two  liundred  before  the  deliverance 
from  Babylon.  * 

10.  The  mention  of  Babylon  reminds  ns  of  another 
remarkable  and  indubitable  prediction  as  remarkably 
fulfilled,  and  the  fulfilment  of  "which  shows  the  ground- 
lessness of  recent  insinuations.  One  of  these  was  no- 
ticed above.     ''He  cannot  quote Jeremiah 

[denouncing  ruin  against  Tyre]  without  remembering 
that  already  the  Babylonian  powder  threw  its  shade 
across  Asia,  and  Nebuchadnezzar  was  mustering  his 
armies."  But  surely  the  writer  of  these  words  could 
not  have  forgotten  that  the  ruin  of  Tyre  by  the 
Chaldeans  had  been  predicted  long  before  the  days  of 
Jeremiah.  In  the  twenty-third  chapter  of  Isaiah  is 
found  the  burden  of  Tyre.  The  siege,  tlie  interruption 
of  her  commerce,  the  flight  of  her  citizens,  and  the 
lamentations  of  her  mariners  and  her  colonies,  are  all 
graphically  foretold  here — and  even  the  authors  of  the 
ruin  are  named.  In  the  thirteenth  verse,  A.Y.,  we  read, 
"Behold  the  land  of  the  Chaldeans.  This  people  was  not 
till  the  Assyrian  founded  it  for  them  that  dwell  in  the 
wilderness  :  they  set  up  the  towers  thereof,  they  raised 
up  the  palaces  thereof;  and  he  brought  it  to  ruin." 
There  are  various  translations  of  this  verse,  f  but  that 
the  Chaldeans  are  predicted  as  the  destroyers  of  Tyre 
is  admitted  by  some  of  the  highest  modern  authorities. 
Knobel  says,  ^^  Behold,  the  land  of  the  Chaldeans. 
With  the  word  '  Behold '  the  author  introduces  some- 
thing new  to  which  he  directs  special  attention.  Tiiat 
something  is  the  destroyers  of  Tyre  whom  he  is  about 
to  name.  Gcsenius  has  "The  sense  of  verse  13  is — 
Behold,  this  people  of  the  Chaldees,  a  little  while  ago 

*  Tholuck  remarks  well,  that  as  the  Babylonish  captivity  is  foretold  both 
by  Isaiah  and  Micali,  and  yet  their  writings  admitted  to  be  genuine,  the 
main  objectiou  against  the  genuineness  of  Isai.  xiii.  iiv.  and  xl.-lxvi.  is  re- 
moved. 


\  Ilitzig  has 


Behold,  the  land  of  the  Chaldeans, 

The  people  there,  that  was  no  people. 

Assur  created  it  for  the  inhabitants  of  the  desert. 

They  erect  their  castles, 

Destroy  her  palaces. 

Make  her  a  heap  of  ruin. 


Essay  III.]  PKOniECY.  j23 

inhabitants  of  the  deserts,  to  whom  the  Assyrians  first 
assigned  settled  liabitations  and  made  it  a  people  :  this 
hitherto  insignificant  people,  scarcely  deserving  men- 
tion, shall  be  the  instrument  of  the  destruction  of  the 
ancient  world-wide  famous  city  of  Tyre."  If  this  be 
tlie  sense,  as  is  generally  agreed,  then  we  have  a  pre- 
diction far  surpassing  the  powers  of  human  foresight, 
and  not  suggested  by  existing  circumstances.  Tlie 
deniers  of  prediction  feel  this,  and  therefore  use  the 
most  violent  means  to  get  rid  of  it,  not  scrupling  to 
alter  the  text  and  change  the  meaning  of  the  Hebrew 
words.  Even  the  great  Ewald  is  not  above  this 
violence.  Without  a  shadow  of  critical  support  he 
would  for  "  Chaldeans  "  substitute  "  Canaanites,"  and 
interpret  "  Behold,  the  land  of  the  Canaanites  (the 
Phoenicians),  this  people  is  no  more,  Assur  has  made 
it  a  desolation ;  they  (the  Phoenicians)  erected  their 
country  villas,  they  built  their  palaces,  he  made  it  a 
ruin."  I.  Olshausen  is  guilty  of  still  greater  violence  : 
he  would  strike  out  of  the  verse  a  number  of  words  at 
tlie  beginning,  including,  of  course,  "  Chaldeans." 
Meier  proposes  to  substitute  "  Kittiim "  for  "  Chal- 
deans," and  to  strike  out  the  latter  part  of  the  verse : 
all  which  criticism  Knobel  unceremoniously  calls 
"  bodenlose  Willkuhr."  Others  would  get  rid  of  the 
whole  as  ungenuine,  not  written  by  Isaiah,  but  by 
some  one  in  the  time  of  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel.'"'^ 
Knobel  and  Gcsenius  get  rid  of  the  difficulty  by  find- 
ing the  event  alluded  to  in  Shalmaneser's  attempt  on 
Tyre,  when  he  subdued  the  whole  of  continental 
Phoenicia,  but  was  unable  to  take  l^ew  Tyre  on 
tlie  island,  and  established  a  blockade  for  five  years. 
The  Chaldeans,  they  say,  served,  and  were  some  of  the 
f^est  troops,  in  the  Assyrian  arm}^  But  this  is  also  to 
do  violence  to  the  text.  The  prophet  does  not  say  that 
the  Assyrians  should  destroy  the  city,  but  explicitly 
and  emphatically  points  out  the  Chaldeans  as  the  miners 
of  Tyre.  "Behold,  the  land  of  the  Chaldeans.  This 
is  the  people — it  was  not  [a  people],  Assur  founded  it; 

*  Gcsenius,  *  Commcutary,'  p.  716. 


124  ^IDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  111. 

[tlie  land]  for  tlio  dwellers  in  steppes.  Tliey  erected 
their  watch-towers  ;  they  roused  up  her  palaces  ;  they 
made  her  a  ruin."  Knobel  and  Gesenius,  in  the  pas- 
sages quoted  from  their  commentaries,  plainly  admit 
this.  But  the  only  siege  of  Tyre  by  the  Chaldeans 
was  the  thirteen  years'  siege  by  jSTebuchadnezzar,  and 
every  unprejudiced  mind  must  admit  that  it  alone 
answers  to  the  prophet's  words,  and  therefore  receive 
the  prophecy  as  a  prediction.  Sooner  than  do  this, 
Knobel,  who  believes  and  proves  the  prophecy  to  be 
genuine,  says  we  must  reject  it  as  ungenuine,  and 
ascribe  it  to  Jeremiah.  ^'  To  assert  the  genuineness 
of  this  portion,  and  yet  to  refer  it  to  the  siege  of  Tyre  by 
ISTebuchadnezzar  the  King  of  the  Chaldeans,  an  event 
which  happened  a  hundred  years  later,  Ezek.  xxvi.- 
xxviii.  (as  Jerome,  Yitringa,  I.  D.  Michaelis,  Drechsler, 
Hengstenberg),  is  impossible,  because  in  the  time  of 
Isaiah  there  could  not  be  a  foreboding,  much  less  a 
certain  and  definite  announcement  of  anything  of  the 
kind."  Such  is  the  honesty  and  trustworthiness  of 
"  the  higher  criticism."  Better  to  reject  a  prophetic 
passage,  which  it  proves  to  be  genuine,  than  admit  a 
prediction.  Here  is  a  plain  proof  that  the  criticism 
proceeds  from  previous  rejection  of  prediction,  not  that 
the  unbelief  proceeds  from  the  criticism.  The  critical 
De  Wette  says  the  same  in  his  Introduction  to  the  O. 
T.  "The  prophecy  concerning  Tyre,  c.  xxiii.,  has 
been  denied  to  be  Isaiah's  on  account  of  the  mention 
of  the  Chaldeans,  and  because  it  has  been  supposed 
that  its  fulfilment  must  be  found  in  history ;  also  be- 
cause of  the  supposed  Chaldaising  language  (verses  3, 
11).  But  these  objections  can  be  some  of  them  entire- 
ly confuted,  and  others  shown  to  be  weak."  "^^  The 
preceding  statement  is  a  remarkable  exhibition  of  the 
untrustworthiness  of  nationalist  criticism  on  account 
of  the  previous  dogmatic  prejudices  of  the  authors 
against  inspiration  and  prediction.  It  is  also  a  speci- 
men, one  out  of  thousands,  of  how  much  reliance  is  to 
be  placed  on  Professor  Jowett's  statement,  "  that  the 

*  This  has  bceu  done  by  botla  Gcscuius  and  Knobel  in  Ihcir  commentaries. 


Essay  III.]  PrwOniECY.  225 

diversity  amongst  German  writers  on  prophecy  is  far 
less  than  among  English  ones.  That  is  a  new  phe- 
nomenon which  has  to  be  acknowledged."  ''^  Any  one 
who  would  take  the  trouble  could  show  that  the  con- 
trary is  the  fact ;  tliat  there  is  such  a  love  of  novelty, 
and  such  unrestrained  efforts  after  originality,  that  the 
diversities  of  opinion  on  any  one  subject,  easy  or 
difficult,  are  much  greater  than  in  England. 

But  to  return ;  Professor  Jowett  says  that  this  is 
one  of  the  passages  which  have  not  been  fulfilled.  "  For 
a  like  reason  the  failure  of  a  i^rophecy  is  never  admitted, 
in  spite  of  Scripture  and  of  history  (Jer.  xxxvi.  30  ; 
Isai.  xxiii.  ;  Amos  vii.  10-17)."  f  What  he  considers 
unfulfilled  in  this  prediction  he  does  not  say  ;  but  there 
are  two  points  to  which  he  probably  alludes.  The  first 
is,  that  there  is  no  historic  account  of  Tyre  having  been 
taken  by  assault  by  ^Nebuchadnezzar.  But  no  such 
event  is  predicted  in  this  chapter.  The  prophet  fore- 
tells a  siege  by  the  Chaldeans,  great  calamities.  Tyre 
reduced  to  a  ruin — this  is  all  matter  of  history.  Tyre 
was  besieged  for  thirteen  years.;]:  In  so  long  a  siege 
the  city  must  have  suffered  severely.  JSTebuchadnezzar 
overran  all  Syria  and  Phoenicia  :  §  he  must,  therefore, 
have  taken  Old  Tyre  on  the  continent ;  and  modern 
critics  now  admit  that  if  New  Tyre  on  the  island  was 
not  taken  by  assault,  it  submitted  to  the  Chaldeans  by 
capitulation,  and  that  the  Tyrian  royal  family  was  car- 
ried to  Babylon.  So  Gesenius  says,  "  The  siege  proba- 
bly ended  with  a  peaceable  agreement  and  alliance, 
as  we  see  that  subsequently  the  Tyrians  sent  to  Baby- 
lon to  fetch  Merbal,  one  of  their  later  kings  (Joseph, 
contra  Apion.  i.  §  21)."  ^  And  Tholuck  (p.  133),  '^  That 
which,  after  the  searching  investigations  of  Ilengstcn- 
berg  and  Ilavernik,  should  never  have  been  questioned, 
has  now,  since  the  farther  researches  in  Movers  (ii.  l,p. 
461),  found  pretty  general  reception  (also  in  Dunckcr, 
i.  172  ;  Kiebuhr,  p.  216) ;  that  certainly,  if  not  a  con- 

*  '  Essays  and  Reviews,'  p.  S40. 

+  '  Essays,'  p.  343. 

X  Josephus,  Autiq.  lib.  x  ,  c.  11.     Coniia  Ap.  i.  21. 

§  Contra  Apiou.  lib.  i.  c.  20. 


226  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  III. 

quest,  yet  a  capitulation  of  the  Tyrians  must  have  taken 
place,  in  consequence  of  which  they  again  became  vas- 
sals of  the  Chaldeans,  and  were  obliged  to  submit  to 
the  removal  of  the  royal  family  to  Babylon.  The 
plainest  proof  of  this  is  seen  in  the  fact,  that  about  a 
year  later  they  were  attacked  as  Chaldean  vassals  and 
subdued  by  Ilophra,  who  had  been  formerly  their  ally. 
That  this  conquest  could  have  been  effected  by  the 
Egyptian  king  by  a  surprise,  shows  in  what  a  low  state 
their  fortifications  and  their  power  must  have  been."  ^ 
It  is  therefore  historically  certain  that  Tyre  was  be- 
sieged, and  reduced  to  a  state  of  ruin  by  the  Chaldeans, 
just  as  Isaiah  had  foretold  about  a  hundred  and  thirty 
years  before,  when  the  Chaldeans  were  as  yet  mere 
mercenary  troops  in  the  armies  of  Assyria.  It  is 
equally  certain  that  after  the  fall  of  Babylon,  Tyre 
became  independent,  rich,  and  prosperous  again,  as 
the  prophet  foretold.  "  It  shall  come  to  pass  in  that 
day,  that  Tyre  shall  be  forgotten  seventy  years,  ac- 
cording to  the  days  of  one  king  :  after  the  end  of  sev- 
enty years  shall  Tyre  sing  as  a  harlot."  The  discord 
amongst  critics  about  the  meaning  of  the  seventy  years 
and  the  days  of  one  king,  is  just  as  great  as  that  already 
noticed.  Two  opinions  meet  most  favour :  one,  that 
of  the  Eationalists,  that  seventy  is  a  round  number, 
and  that  seventy  years  mean  a  long  time ;  the  other, 
that  Mng  liere  means  dynasty  or  Idncjdom  of  the  Chal- 
deans, as  Dan.  vii.  17,  viii.  20,  which  is  the  view  of 
Aben  Ezra,  Yitringa,  Lowth,  Dciderlein,  Rosenmiiller, 
&c.  K  eitlier  be  true,  the  objector  cannot  fairly  say 
that  the  prediction  has  not  been  fulfilled. 

With  regard  to  the  concluding  verse,  in  wliicli  the 
prophet  foretells  that  after  Tyre's  recovery  from  Babylo- 
nian vassalage,  ''  Iler  merchandize  and  her  hire  should  be 
holiness  to  the  Lord,"  the  most  that  can  be  objected  is, 
that  we  have  no  record  of  its  fulfilment.  But  from 
this  it  docs  not  follow  that  this  part  of  the  prediction 

*  That  is,  to  what  a  state  of  ruin  fhcy  had  been  reduced  by  the  previous 
thirteen  years'  siege. — ^Sce  also  von  Nicbuhr's  '  Gcscbichtc  Assur's  und  Ba- 
bel's,' p.  'iilO. 


Essay  III.]  rROPIIECY.  127 

was  not  accomplished.  The  fiiliihnent  could  only  have 
taken  place  after  the  restoration  from  Babylon,  and 
before  the  destruction  by  Alexander.  The  records  of 
events  in  Scripture  from  the  return  of  Zerubbabel  to 
the  close  of  the  Canon  are  too  brief  too  afford  us  any 
light  as  to  the  relations  between  Tyre  and  Jerusalem. 
In  the  days  of  Solomon  we  know  that  they  were 
friendly,  Hiram  contributed  to  the  building  of  the 
temple,  and  the  friendship  must  have  continued  un- 
usually intimate,  as  Amos  denounces  punishment  upon 
Tyre  for  "  not  having  remembered  the  brotherly  cove- 
nant." (Amos  i.  9.)  There  is,  therefore,  nothing  im- 
probable in  the  supposition  that,  after  Tyre's  recovery 
from  almost  ruin,  friendly  relations  were  re-established, 
and  rich  offerings  made  in  the  temple  at  Jerusalem. 
The  marvellous  fulfilment  of  the  former  portion  respect- 
ing the  Chaldeans  is  a  guarantee  for  the  Divine  origin 
and  accomplishment  of  the  latter.  Hitherto  objectors 
have  only  asserted,  nut  attempted  to  prove,  the  non- 
fulfilment. 

There  are  other  fulfilled  predictions  to  which  the 
reader's  attention  might  satisfactorily  have  been  turned, 
but  the  charge  of  non-fulfilment  made  in  '  Essays  and. 
Reviews '  constrains  us  to  consider  a  passage  in  Jere- 
miah, and  another  in  Amos  there  referred  to,  in  support 
of  the  allegation.  The  former,  Jer.  xxxvi.  10,  is  thus 
given  in  the  Authorized  Version  : — "  Therefore  thus 
saith  the  Lord  of  Jehoiakim,  King  of  Judah,  he  shall 
have  none  to  sit  [literally,  '  none  sitting'^']  upon  the 
throne  of  David  ;  and  his  body  shall  be  cast  out  in  the 
day  to  the  heat,  and  in  the  night  to  the  frost."  f  To 
this  Hitzig  in  his  commentary  objects,  that  Jehoiakim 
had  a  son,  Jehoiachin,  who  did  sit  upon  his  throne, 
and  that  in  2  Kings  xxiv.  G  (Hcb.  5),  we  read,  "  So 
Jehoiakim  slept  with  his  fathers,  and  Jehoiachin  his 

*  The  present  participle  ^r'"^  is  used  to  denote  continuance.  See  Ewald, 
Gramra.  §  350. 

The  verb  -15"'  signifies  to  abide,  cotitltnu;,  endure,  as  well  as  to  sit.  Gen. 
xxiv.  55 :  Ps.  ix.  8 ;  Jer.  xxx.  18. 

+  Compare  xxii.  I'j  :  "  lie  shall  be  buried  with  the  burial  of  an  ass,  drawn 
and  cast  forth  beyond  the  gates  of  Jerusalem." 


128  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  III. 

son  reigned  in  liis  stead."  If  Jeremiah  had,  after  utter- 
ing the  prophecy,  committed  it  to  writing,  and  then 
died  before  Jelioiakim,  this  objection  might  have  some 
weiglit ;  but  when  it  is  remembered  that  Jeremiah 
lived  many  years  after  the  death  of  Jehoiakim,  and,  if 
his  words  had  been  falsified  by  events,  might  have 
altered  them,  and  yet  did  not,  but  left  them  as  origi- 
nally uttered,  the  objection  ceases  to  have  any  force 
at  all.  The  propliet  must  have  been  satisfied  after  the 
event,  that  his  words  expressed  what  had  happened. 
Jehoiakim  had  in  fact  no  son  "  sitting,"  or  continuing 
on  the  throne  of  David,  for  three  months  after  Jehoia- 
chin's  elevation,  he  was  deposed  and  carried  away.  The 
words,  "  He  slept  with  his  fathers,"  signify  simply  that 
he  died,  aflarming  nothing  about  his  burial.  Here 
Ewald  is  much  more  thoughtful  and  more  candid  than 
the  English  Essayist  or  his  German  forerunner.  In 
the  '  Geschichte  dcs  Yolkes  Israel,'  iii.  p.  430,  Ewald 
gives  an  account  of  the  death  of  Jehoiakim  and  of  the 
treatment  of  his  corpse  in  agreement  with  Jeremiah's 
words,  and,  in  a  note,  adds,  "The  particular  circum- 
stances of  the  death  of  Jehoiakim  are  very  obscure. 
The  formula,  '  He  slejDt  with  his  fathers,'  2  Kings  xxiv. 
5,  means  nothing  more  than  his  death ;  that  he  was 
taken  prisoner  is  mentioned,  2  Chron.  xxxvi.  6 ;  but 
what  actually  occurred  may  be  inferred  with  tolerable 
probability  from  the  words  selected  by  Jeremiah  xxii. 
18,  &c.,  and  xxxvi.  30.  For,  though  the  projDhet  had 
certainly  predicted  the  king's  unhappy  end  long  be- 
fore, he  wrote  down  the  words  after  the  event."  Ewald, 
therefore,  saw  the  impossibility  of  these  words  contain- 
ing an  unfulfilled  prediction.  The  English  objector 
might  have  saved  his  criticism  from  appearing  as  the 
dictate  of  passion  rather  than  the  conclusion  of  judg- 
ment, had  he  taken  time  to  consider  the  jorophet's  words 
impartially. 

Another  example  of  this  unhappy  hastiness  in  tak- 
ing up  objections  is  found  in  the  reference  to  Amos  vii. 
10-17.  In  our  English  Bible  the  passage  reads  thus  : — 
"  Then  Amaziah  the  priest  of  Bethel  sent  to  Jeroboam 


EssATiii.]  rEoriiECY.  229 

Iving  of  Israel,  saying,  Amos  hath  conspired  against 
thee  in  the  midst  of  the  house  of  Israel :  the  land  is 
not  able  to  bear  all  his  words.  For  thus  Amos  saith, 
Jeroboam  shall  die  by  the  sword,  and  Israel  shall 
surely  be  led  away  captive  out  of  their  own  land. 
And  Amaziah  said  unto  Amos,  O  thou  seer,  go  flee 
thee  away  into  the  land  of  Judah,  and  there  eat  bread, 
and  prophesy  there  :  But  prophesy  not  again  any  more 
at  Bethel ;  for  it  is  the  king's  chapel  and  the  king's 
court."  Amos  asserts  his  Divine  call,  and  utters  this 
prediction  against  Amaziah  : — "  Therefore,  thus  saith 
tlic  Lord  ;  thy  wife  shall  be  an  harlot  in  the  city,  and 
thy  sons  and  thy  daughters  shall  fall  by  the  sword,  and 
thy  land  shall  be  divided  by  line ;  and  thou  shalt  die 
in  a  polluted  land  ;  and  Israel  shall  surely  go  into  cap- 
tivity forth  of  his  land."  As  the  Essayist  does  not 
specify  the  particulars  which  he  supposes  unfullilled, 
we  can  only  state  the  objection  according  to  Hitzig. 
First,  then,  he  may  supj)ose  that  the  prediction  is  not 
fullilled  because  Jeroboam  11.  did  not  die  by  the  sword  ; 
but  if  the  objector  will  look  at  verse  9,  he  will  see  that 
Amos  did  not  predict  anything  of  the  kind — the 
prophet's  threat  is  not  against  Jeroboam,  but  his 
house.  "  I  will  rise  against  the  house  of  Jeroboam 
with  the  sword,"  which  threat  was  fulfilled  when 
Shallum  conspired  against  Jeroboam's  son  and  suc- 
cessor, and  slew  him  and  reigned  in  his  stead.  (2 
Kings  XV.  10.)  The  words,  "  Jeroboam  shall  die  by 
the  sword,"  were  a  malicious  addition  of  Amaziah's 
to  induce  Jeroboam  to  drive  Amos  from  Bethel.  Ilit- 
zig's  attempt  to  prove  that  "  house  of  Jeroboam  "  in- 
cluded Jeroboam  himself  by  referring  to  Isai.  vii.  13, 
where  "  house  of  David  "  includes  Aliaz  and  his  fimiily, 
is  a  miserable  failure.  To  make  the  cases  parallel, 
Isaiah  nmst  have  said,  "  Hear  ye  now,  O  house  of 
Ahaz." 

The  next  portion  of  the  assaulted  prediction  foretells 

that  Israel  should  go  into  captivity.     Taking  Knobel's 

dates,  Amos  uttered  his  prophecies  between  790-784 

B.  c,  i.  e.  before  the  death  of  Jeroboam.     The  final  car- 

6* 


J 30  ^IDS  TO  FAITH.  [Ess AT  111. 

rying  away  of  Israel  by  Shalmaneser  occurred  about 
sixty  years  after  :  so  tliat  here  is  an  undoubted  predic- 
tion undoubtedly  fulfilled. 

There  remains  only  the  denunciation  against  Am- 
aziah,  his  wife  and  children,  the  fulfilment  of  which  is 
not  recorded.  But  surely  this  is  not  surprising,  when 
the  excessive  brevity  of  the  accounts  of  the  kings  and 
revolutions  that  followed,  is  taken  into  consideration. 
There  is  nothing  impossible  or  improbable  in  the  fate 
predicted.  Within  thirty  years  from  the  date  of  the 
prophecy,  the  Assyrians  began  their  incursions  into  the 
land  of  Israel.  Although,  then,  the  fulfilment  of  this 
particular  is  not  related,  it  is  not  improbable.  The  ful- 
filment of  the  other  two  particulars  is  a  guarantee  that 
this  also  was  accomplished.  This  objection,  however, 
like  others  of  the  kind,  has  this  value :  it  shows  that 
the  objector  believes  that  the  Hebrew  prophets  did  lay 
claim  to  the  power  of  predicting  future  events. 

11.  Here  our  attention  has  been  directed  to  one  of 
many  wondrous  predictions  concerning  the  destinies  of 
Israel,  which  have  excited  the  astonishment  of  readers 
in  all  ages.  Moses  foretold  the  dispersion  of  the  dis- 
obedient people,  and  their  preservation  in  the  midst  of 
the  nations.  The  theme  has  been  taken  up  by  all  the 
later  prophets.  The  fulfilment  is  before  our  eyes.  Is- 
rael has  been  scattered  to  the  four  winds,  but  is  still 
preserved.  Of  the  nations  by  whom  and  amongst 
whom  they  were  first  dispersed  the  Lord  has  made  a 
full  end.  He  has  chastened  Israel  in  measure,  but  has 
not  permitted  them  to  disappear.^  The  Assyrians,  the 
Babylonians,  the  Bomans  have  utterly  perished.  The 
Ten  Tribes  are  "  wanderers  among  the  nations."  The 
people  of  the  Jews,  rich,  powerful,  intelligent,  survive 
all  the  revolutions  of  Empires,  ancient,  medieval,  mod- 
ern, and  await  the  consummation  of  the  Lord's  oracles. f 
But  as  this  is  matter  of  notoriety,  is  not  disputed  or 
explained  by  Eationalists  or  Essayists,  it  is  enough  to 
refer  to  this  proof  of  revelation,  as  wonderful  as  the 
answer  to  Elijah's  prayer  (1  Kings,  xviii.). 

*  Jcr.  XXX.  11,  xxxi.  05-37 ;  Isai.  vi.  11-13 ;  Amos  ix.  9. 
t  See  Butler's  '  Analogy,'  Part  ii,  c.  7. 


EssATlII.]  PEOPHECT.  joj 

12.  But  that  whicli  gives  to  Hebrew  propliecy  its 
peculiar  charm,  and  its  paramount  importance,  is  that 
it  contains  predictions  respecting  Redemption  and 
tlie  Redeemer.  That  there  are  Messianic  prophecies 
has  been  the  belief  of  Jews  and  Christians  for  more 
than  two  thousand  years,  and  is  fully  admitted  by  the 
JSTew  School  of  Theolog}^  But,  much  beyond  this,  the 
agreement  between  the  old  and  new  interpreters  does 
not  extend.  For  some  of  the  prophecies  applied  in  the 
Xew  Testament  to  the  Messiah,  the  modern  school  has 
new  interpretations.  Of  others,  and  those  most  im- 
portant, it  denies  the  genuineness;  and  one  of  the  vital 
questions  now  brought  before  the  English  mind  is, 
whether  we  are  to  Ibllow  the  'New  Testament,  or  the 
new  German  critics.  The  innovators  in  England  do 
not  pretend  to  offer  anything  original  of  their  own. 
They  repeat  in  English  what  they  have  derived  from 
one  class  of  German  writers.  And,  as  German  learn- 
ing stands  deservedly  in  high  repute,  there  is  a  danger 
of  the  unwary  receiving  without  question,  what  ap- 
pears to  come  on  authority  so  respectable.  Hence  the 
present  necessity  of  such  frequent  references  to  the 
sources  from  whicli  they  draw,  and  also  of  recalling 
attention  to  the  real  question  at  issue,  namel}^,  whether 
the  New  Testament  or  German  critics  are  to  be  our 
guides  in  interpreting  prophecy.  !Now,  placing  for  a 
moment  the  Kew Testament  writers  on  the  lowest  level, 
regarding  them  merely  as  included  amongst  the  ancient 
Jews,  their  opinion  must  be  of  some  value.  Theirs 
were  the  prophetic  books.  For  their  fathers  and  for 
themselves  they  were  written.  They  Avere  orientals. 
They  inherited  the  traditional  interpretation  of  their 
people.  Their  interpretation  has  been  accepted  by  the 
intelligent  of  other  nations.  The  Christian  Church, 
composed  of  a  great  variety  of  races,  abounding  in 
minds  of  all  possible  types,  in  different  stages  of  cul- 
ture, approved  and  adhered  to  the  old  Jewish  interpre- 
tation for  many  centuries.  True,  that  oidy  two  or  three 
of  the  Fathers  understood  Hebrew,  and  that  the  early 
Church  was  dependent  upon  the  Greek  and  Syriac,  and 


132  -^^DS  TO  FAITII.  [Essay  IIL 

the  medieval  Cliurcli  on  tlie  Vulgate,  versions.  But, 
as  was  said  above,  and  at  the  present  time  ought  to  be 
kept  in  remembrance,  however  many  of  the  beauties 
and  peculiarities  of  the  writer  maybe  lost  in  a  version, 
^he  grand  substance,  the  purpose  and  intent  of  the 
whole,  which  is,  after  all,  the  real  meaning  of  any  book 
that  has  a  meaning,  may  be  grasped  in  any  tolerable 
translation  by  any  intelligent  reader.  And  that  which 
suggests  itself  to  the  common  sense  of  mankind,  as  the 
meaning,  whether  derived  from  version  or  original,  is 
undoubtedly  the  true  meaning.  And  so  it  is  with  proph- 
ecy. To  readers  of  ancient  or  modern  versions,  or  of 
the  original,  the  general  scope  and  intent  has  ever 
appeared  the  same.  And,  therefore,  at  the  revival  of 
letters,  and  at  the  Heformation,  when  the  original  lan- 
guage of  tlie  prophets  came  to  be  studied,  the  general 
sense,  handed  down  from  tlie  New  Testament  writers 
by  the  Fathers  and  medieval  divines,  still  commended 
itself  to  students  as  acute  in  intellect,  and  to  scholars  as 
familiar  with  the  Hebrew  language,  as  any  who  have 
lived  in  the  last  hundred  years.  Indeed  it  may  bo 
doubted  whether  Hebrew  has  been  so  nearly  a  mother- 
tongue  with  any  recent  critics,  as  it  was  with  the 
Buxtorfs,  Wagenseil,  Edzard,  and  others  of  old  ;  and 
whether  any  modern  commentators  have  been  natural- 
ly more  competent  to  grasp  the  general  sense  than  the 
Reformers,  and  those  who  followed  them.  And  yet^ 
from  the  Keformation  down  to  the  last  quarter  of  the 
eighteenth  century,  the  old  interpretation  prevailed, 
Romanists  and  Protestants  were  still  of  one  mind  as  to 
the  general  outline  of  prophetic  truth.  Wonderful  if 
ancient  Jews,  Fathers  and  Medievalists,  Protestants 
and  Pomanists,  were  all  mistaken,  and  the  true  sense 
hidden  until  about  fifty  j^ears  ago. 

13.  If  the  New  School  were  all  of  one  mind ;  if  all 
modern  critics  were  unanimous  in  their  judgments,  and 
uniform  in  their  interpretations,  and  their  conclusions 
had  been  arrived  at  by  unbiassed  investigation,  such 
unanimity  of  opinion,  and  conclusions  so  deduced, 
would  naturally  have  great  weight.     But  the  variety 


Essay  III.]  PROrnECY.  I33 

and  diversity  of  opinion  in  the  German  Eationalist 
School  is  unboimded.  They  agree  only  in  that  negative 
view,  which  necessarily  arises  from  the  common  origin 
and  the  common  principles  of  their  theology.  The 
origin  of  their  theology  is  nndoubtedly  Deistic  infidel- 
ity ;''^'  its  fundamental  principles,  that  there  is  no  super- 
natural revelation  of  Deity,  and  therefore  no  Divine 
prediction, f  consequently  that  there  can  be  no  real 
predictions  concerning  Jesus  of  IS'azareth,  or  anybody 
else4  Criticism  derived  from  such  a  source,  and  guid- 
ed by  such  principles,  must  be  eminently  untrustwor- 
thy. The  conclusions  forerun  the  investigation.  If 
there  can  be  no  prediction  at  all,  then  there  can  be 
none  relating  to  our  Lord  ;  and  therefore  from  their 
general  principle,  before  any  investigation  is  made,  it  fol- 
lows that  neither  the  xxiind  Psalm,  nor  Isai.  vii.  14,  nor 
any  other  Psalm  or  prophecy,  can  be  interpreted  of 
the  Saviour,  and  therefore  investigation  can  only  be 
made  in  order  to  show  that  the  foregone  conclusion  is 
true.  The  investigators  may  be  learned,  profound, 
acute,  diligent,  honest,  but  their  principles  hinder  them 
from  acknowledging  that  any  prediction  ever  was  or 
can  be  fulfilled,  and  compel  them  to  conclude  that  it  is 
not ;  and  therefore  their  criticism  and  conclusions  in 
such  matters  must  be  regarded  not  only  with  suspicion, 
but  as  probably  untrue,  the  result  of  their  dogmatic 
prejudices,  and  therefore  utterly  insufficient  to  out- 
weigh the  common  judgment  of  Jews  and  Gentiles  fur 
more  than  two  thousand  years. 

11.  Such  would  be  the  opinion  of  the  student  who 
had  never  heard  of  Evangelists,  Apostles,  or  Rationalists 
in  his  life,  but  considered  the  subject,  apart  from  all 
religious  interests,  merely  in  a  scientilic  point  of  view. 

*■  See  '  Letters  on  Rationalism,'  passim. 

t  At  vero  quibus  miraculoriim  auctoritas  implicita  est  scrnpulis,  iisdcm 
Tcl  gravioribus  ctiam  dccrota  de  vaticiniis  proposita  i)roinuiitur.  Pi'iinum 
cnim  qucevis  predict io  divinitus  patcfacta,  qua  fatum  iiievitabile  liominis  aut 
populi  cujusuam,  quod  ex  re  quadam  ab  ipsis  perpetranda  pondct,  disertc 
nunciatur,  ideas  Dei  sanctissimi  ct  benignissimi  repugnat,  fataUsmu7ii  fovet 
et  libertatem  hominum  moralem  tollit. — Wegscheidef,  Insf/tutiones,  p.  217. 

X  "So  muss  wohl  zugegcben  wcrden,  dass  cin  Erwcis  Christi  als  Erloscrs 
aus  den  Weissagungcn  uumOglich  ist." — Schleicrmachcr,  Der  Chrutliche 
Glaube,  i.  2,  a.  lu5. 


23^  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  III. 

But  in  the  question  betvreen  the  New  Testament  and 
modern  criticism  the  Christian  sees  something  more 
tlian  an  alternative  between  ancient  Judaism  and  mod- 
ern heathenism — he  sees  that  it  is  an  alternative  be- 
tween Christ  and  unbelief.  The  interpretations  of  the 
New  Testament  are  the  interpretations  of  Christ  and  of 
those  to  whom,  "  beginning  at  Moses,  and  all  the  proph- 
ets, he  expounded  in  all  the  Scriptures  the  things 
concerning  himself"  (Lnke  xxiv.  27),  "whose  under- 
standings He  opened  that  they  might  understand  the 
Scriptures "  (Luke  xxiv.  45) ;  to  vrhom  He  sent  His 
Holy  Spirit  to  "  bring  all  things  to  their  remembrance 
whatsoever  He  had  said  unto  them,"  and  to  "guide 
them  into  all  truth."  (John  xiv.  20,  xvi.  13.)  He  can- 
not depart  from  their  interpretations,  and  adopt  the 
new  and  contradictory  criticism,  without  admitting 
either  that  Christ  knowingly  accommodated  Himself  to 
the  errors  of  the  times,  or  that  He  was  mistaken,  or 
that  His  discourses  have  been  incorrectly  reported;  any 
one  of  which  admissions  is  equivalent  to  a  renunciation 
of  Christianity.  The  first  is  the  supposition  of  some  of 
the  elder  Rationalists,  the  second  of  some  of  the  later, 
and  the  third  apparently  of  many  modern  critics.  To 
admit  the  first  is  to  deny  our  Lord's  integrity,  to  con- 
cede the  second  is  to  make  him  a  mere  fallible  man, 
and  to  receive  the  third  is  to  take  away  the  main 
ground  of  our  faith  in  Christ.  The  lowest  theory  of  in- 
spiration, at  all  comdatible  with  faith,  is  that  "it  pro- 
tects the  doctrine."  Our  Lord's  doctrine  is  contained 
in  His  discourses,  and  part  of  those  discourses  is  His 
interpretation  of  propliecy,  and  the  promise  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  to  guide  His^  disciples.  If  in  those  dis- 
courses, or  those  of  His  discijdes,  the  prophecies  are 
falsely  interpreted,  the  doctrine  is  not  protected,  the 
promise  of  the  Spirit  cannot  have  been  fulfilled,  and  we 
are  brought  to  the  horrid  and  blasphemous  conclusion 
that  Christ,  "The  Way,  the  Truth,  and  the  Life,"  was 
fallible,  and  that  His  word  is  not  to  be  depended  upon. 
From  these  consistent  and  necessary  conclusions  the 
Essayists  do  not  shrink  any  more  than  tlieir  German 


Essay  III.J  rEOPHECY.  ^35 

masters.  They  reject  the  New  Testament  interpretation 
of  prophecy,  and  then  consistently  deny  the  authority 
of  the  New  Testament  itself.  He  who  would  sweep 
away  all  predictive  prophecy  insinuates  that  tlie  Gospel 
portrait  of  our  Lord  is  dimmed  "  by  the  haze  of  mingled 
imagination  and  remembrance,  with  which  his  awful 
figure  could  scarcely  fail  to  be  at  length  invested  by 
affection."  *  Another  says  that  "  The  New  Testament 
writings  leave  us  in  uncertainty  as  to  the  descent  of 
Jesus  Christ  according  to  the  flesh,  wdiether  by  His 
mother  He  were  of  the  tribe  of  Judah,  or  of  the  tribe 
of  Levi ;  "f  implies  tliat  His  birth  at  I3ethlehem  and 
the  announcement  of  it  by  the  Angels  are  doubtful ; 
and  that  the  three  flrst  Gospels,  though  more  trust- 
worthy than  the  fourth,  contain  only  "  more  exact  tra- 
ditions of  wh-at  he  actually  said."  A  third,  who,  fol- 
lowing Reimarus,:}:  doubts  whether  any  one  passage 
from  the  Psalms  or  Prophets  quoted  in  the  Epistles  is 
rightly  interpreted,  §  insinuates  that  our  Lord's  pre- 
diction concerning  the  day  of  judgment  has  failed 
because  it  is  inseparable  from  that  of  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem,  and  in  another  work  expressly  teaches  that 
in  this  matter  our  Lord  was  mistaken.  ||  Thus  the  ex- 
ample of  foreign  critics  and  their  followers  at  home 
warns  us  that  if  we  give  up  the  prophetic  interpretations 
of  Christ  and  the  Apostles,  we  must  prepare  also  to  part 
with  our  Christianity,  and  begin  a  painful  and  not  very 
profitable  search  for  those  crumbs  of  Divine  truth, 
which  these  kind  critics  still  suppose  to  be  scattered 
about  in  the  Prophets  and  Evangelists,  and  which  can 
only  be  recognized  by  the  verifying  faculty  of  the  critic. 
But  if  we  believe  in  Christ,  and  those  whom  He  taught 
by  His  Spirit,  we  must  take  their  principle  of  inter- 
pretation as  ours,  and  rest  assured  that  the  interpreta- 
tions which  they  have  given  exhibit  the  true  mind  of 
that  Spirit  who  spake  by  the  prophets.  The  wise  men, 
and  the  scribes,  and  the  disputers  of  the  day  may  decry 

*  *  Essays  and  Reviews,'  p.  SO.  t  Ibid.,  pp.  ISO,  203. 

X  Wolfenbuttel,  *  Fraf^ments,'  §  34-45.  §  Page  4UtJ. 

II   See  Professor  Jowclt's  '  Commcntarj'  to  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Thcssa- 
louiaus,'  p.  lUS-111. 


136  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  IIL 

this  principle  as  unscientific,  and  protest  that  it  is  better 
not  to  read  the  Bible  at  all,  than  to  read  with  such  re- 
strictions ;  but  Christians  may  be  content  with  the 
wisdom  that  came  down  from  above,  and  with  the 
liberty  wlierewith  Christ  has  made  them  free.  Where 
our  Lord  or  an  inspired  Apostle  has  spoken,  we  abide 
by  the  interpretation. 

15.  Here,  however,  it  is  necessary  to  guard  against 
mistake.  Where  passages  of  the  prophecies  are  cited 
or  applied,  attention  must  be  paid  to  the  mind  and  in- 
tention of  the  speaker  or  writer,  as  sometimes  Old 
Testament  language  is  used  without  any  intention  of 
intimating  a  fulfilment  of  prophecy  either  direct  or 
typical.  The  words  w^ere  suitable  to  express  the  feel- 
ings or  thoughts  of  the  writer,  and  they  were  adopted. 
Thus  when  St.  Paul  saj^s,  "I  say,  have  they  not  heard? 
Yes,  verily,  their  sound  went  into  all  the  earth,  and 
their  words  unto  the  end  of  the  world,"  there  is  no 
reason  for  supposing  that  the  Apostle  looked  upon 
Ps.  xix.  4  as  a  prophecy  fulfilled  in  the  preaching  of 
the  Gospel.  The  Psalm  speaks  of  the  heavens  and  the 
firmament.  But  the  words  aptly  and  beautifully  ex- 
pressed what  the  disciples  of  Christ  had  already  done, 
and  Paul  was  guided  to  adopt  them,  the  rather  because 
in  the  Psalm  itself  the  parallel  is  drawn  between  the 
book  of  nature  and  the  book  of  revelation,  the  har- 
monious testimony  of  the  works  and  word  of  God.  An- 
other instance  occurs  1  Cor.  xv.  32:  ''If  the  dead  rise 
not,  let  us  eat  and  drink,  for  to-morrow  we  die."  Here 
is  a  quotation  from  Isai.  xxii.  13.  Tlie  words  of  the 
prophet  forcibly  depicted  tlie  character  of  those  of 
whom  the  Apostle  was  speaking,  and  they  are  adopted 
accordingly.  This  principle  is  demonstrated  by  2  Tim. 
ii.  19  :  "The  foundation  of  God  standeth  sure,  having 
this  seal.  The  Lord  knoweth  them  that  are  his."  The 
latter  words  are  a  quotation  from  JSTumb.  xvi.  5,  refer- 
ring to  the  rebellion  of  Korah  and  his  company,  but 
adopted  by  the  Apostle,  just  as  the  later  prophets,  cs- 
j)ecially  Jeremiah,  express  tlieir  message  occasionally 
in  citations  from  their  predecessors  or  from  tlie  Pen- 
tateuch. 


Essay  III.]  PEOniECY.  13y 

In  tlie  next  place,  it  is  to  be  observed  that  Old  Testa- 
ment passages  are  sometimes  cited  simply  to  confirm  a 
doctrine,  or  to  form  the  foundation  of  an  argument;  as 
Avlien  the  Apostle  says  (Rom.  ix.  7),  "IS^either  because 
they  are  seed  of  Abraham,  are  they  all  children:  but 
in  Isaac  shall  th^^  seed  be  called."  The  latter  words  are 
cited  to  prove  that  mere  fleshly  descent  does  not  con- 
stitute a  right  to  the  inheritance  or  God's  favour.  Isli- 
mael  was  according  to  the  flesh  the  child  of  Abraham, 
but  it  was  to  Isaac  and  his  posterity  that  the  inheritance 
of  the  promises  was  given.  In  like  manner  our  Lord 
(Matt.  xiii.  14)  ap])lies  Isai.  vi.  9,  10  to  tlie  Jews  whom 
lie  addressed,  and  St.  Paul  applies  the  same  words 
(Acts  xxviii.  26)  to  the  Jews  at  Rome.  They  contain 
a  general  principle  of  God's  dealings  with  men,  appli- 
cable at  all  times.  So  St.  Paul  (Rom.  x.  12)  employs 
the  words  of  Joel,  "Whosoever  shall  call  upon  the 
name  of  the  Lord  shall  be  saved,"  to  prove  that  there 
is  no  difierence  between  the  Jew  and  the  Gentile.  The 
stress  is  upon  the  words  Tra?  jap  o?  ["^^.s  b2]  "every 
one."  Not  to  the  Jews  only,  but  to  every  one  who  calls 
upon  the  name  of  the  Lord,  God  promises  salvation, 
therefore  there  is  no  difference,  (fee.  The  object  for 
which  the  quotation  is  made  must  be  kept  in  view,  else 
the  conclusiveness  of  the  argument  will  be  missed,  and 
a  wrong  interpretation  given  to  the  prophecy.  As  for 
example  (Acts  xv.  15 — 17),  where  James  proves  the 
right  of  the  Gentiles  to  be  received  into  the  Church 
without  circumcision,  he  says,  "  Simeon  hath  declared 
how  God  at  the  flrst  did  visit  the  Gentiles  to  take  out 
of  them  a  people  for  His  name.  And  to  this  agree  the 
words  of  the  prophets  ;  as  it  is  written.  After  this  I  will 
return,  and  will  build  again  the  tabernacle  of  David, 
which  is  fallen  down  .  .  .  that  the  residue  of  men - 
might  seek  after  the  Lord,  and  all  the  Gentiles  on  whom 
my  name  is  called,  saith  the  Lord."  Some  readers  and 
interpreters  fix  their  eye  upon  the  tabernacle  of  David, 
and  seeing  that  that  was  not  literally  fulfilled,  take  it 
figuratively  of  the  Christian  Church,  and  thereby  do 

*  Amos,  ix.  11, 12. 


138  ^I^S  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  IIL 

violence  to  the  words  of  the  pro2)hecy,  and  at  the  same 
time  miss  St.  James's  argument.  The  question  was, 
whether  the  Gentiles,  i.e.  without  circumcision  and 
obedience  to  tlie  Mosaic  Law,  couki  be  received  into 
the  Christian  Church.  The  majority  of  Jewish  Chris- 
tians thought  that  they  could  not.  St.  Peter  proved 
that  these  persons  were  wrong  by  an  appeal  to  fact. 
St.  James  shows  the  same  b}'  a  reference  to  prophecy. 
His  object  was  not  to  quote  and  show  a  fullilment  of 
one  prediction,  but  the  general  tenour  of  all  respecting 
the  call  of  the  Gentiles  as  such,  and  therefore  he  says 
in  the  plural,  "To  this  agree  the  words  of  the  prophets." 
At  the  same  time  he  selects  one,  in  which  the  Gentiles 
[niii,  edvrj]  are  mentioned  by  name  with  the  addition 
"  all,"  "all  nations,"  and  where  it  is  said  that  the  nam.e 
of  the  Lord  is  called  upon  them.  The  stress  of  the 
argument  rests  upon  the  word  "  Gentiles,"  and  ujDon  the 
fact  that  God's  name  is  called  upon  them ;  as  if  he 
would  say,  "  Here  in  Amos  men  upon  whom  the  Lord's 
name  is  called  are  still  spoken  of  as  Gentiles ;  they  can- 
not therefore  be  ]3ersons  circumcised  and  keeping  the 
Law,  and  therefore  the  name  of  the  Lord  may  now  also 
be  called  upon  Gentiles  as  such,  and  therefore  there  is 
no  necessity  for  circumcising  them.  To  enter  the 
Church  of  Clirist  it  is  not  necessary  that  they  should 
cease  to  be  Gentiles,  or  become  proselytes  by  circum- 
cision." ''^ 

16.  Li  the  next  place  words  are  quoted  from  the 
prophets,  wdiich  contain  no  prediction  at  all,  and  arc 
yet  spoken  of  as  being  fulfilled,  because  the  event  to 
which  they  allude  was  a  type  of  that  to  which  they  arc 
applied.  Our  Lord  and,  after  Him,  the  Apostles,  lay 
down  the  principle  that  past  history  may  represent 
that  which  is  to  happen  hereafter.  Thus  the  Saviour 
refers  to  the  brazen  serpent,  and  to  Jonah  as  prefigur- 
ing His  resurrection,  and  even  the  time  of  it  on  the 
third  day.     St.  Paul  teaches  that  Llagar  and  Sarah  are 

*  The  account  of  this  dispute  is  a  strong  testimony  to  the  credibility, 
knowledge,  and  good  f;uth  of  tlie  writer.  The  Pharisees  believed  that  pros- 
elytes of  the  gate,  i.e.  ])roselytes  without  circumcision,  could  only  be  received 
when  all  the  twelve  tribes  were  in  the  laud. 


Essay  III.]  PEOPHEUY.  2 39 

typical  of  tlic  covenants ;  the  Paschal  lamb  of  Christ's 
atoning  death  ;  tlie  passage  of  the  Ilecl  Sea  of  baptism; 
the  smitten  rock  of  Christ.  The  author  of  the  E})istle 
to  the  Hebrews,  St.  Peter  in  his  allusion  to  the  clehige, 
and  St.  John  in  his  mystical  application  of  the  names 
Sodom,  Egypt,  and  Babylon,  conlirm  the  principle, 
which  helps  us  to  interpret  passages  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, such  as  those  where  the  Messiah  is  called  David, 
and  to  understand  passages  of  the  New  Testament, 
where  what  was  spoken  of  David  is  applied  to  our 
Lord.  The  principle  also  solves  the  apparent  difficulty 
of  two  passages  strongly  insisted  upon  by  tlie  enemies 
of  Christianity.  Concerning  our  Lord's  early  sojourn 
in  Egypt,  St.  Matthew  says,  that  it  happened  "  that  it 
might  be  fulfilled  which  was  spoken  of  the  Lord  by  the 
prophet,  saying,  Out  of  Egypt  have  I  called  my  Son," 
— and  respecting  the  slaughter  of  the  children  at  Beth- 
lehem, "  Then  was  fulfilled  that  which  was  spoken  by 
Jeremy  the  prophet,  saying.  In  Rama  was  a  voice 
heard."  Li  neither  case  does  St.  Matthew  quote  pre- 
dictions, but  Ilosea's  and  Jeremiah's  references  to  past 
history.  When  Ilosea  said,  "Out  of  Egypt  have  I 
called  my  son,"  or  when  Jeremiah  spoke  of  Bach  el 
weeping  for  her  children,  neither  was  uttering  a  pre- 
diction of  the  future,  but  alluding  to  facts  long  j^ast. 
Hosea  was  alluding  to  the  Exodus  eight  centuries  be- 
fore, and  Jeremiah  to  the  carrying  away  of  the  Ten 
Tribes  one  hundred  years  before  he  wrote.  St.  Mat- 
tliew"  therefore  speaks  of  them  as  fulfilled  in  the  only 
way  in  which  fiicts  can  be  fulfilled,  in  events  the  anti- 
types of  those  referred  to. 

17.  But  after  making  allowance  for  these  and  numer- 
ous other  simihir  applications  of  prophecy,  there  re- 
main many  which  the  Lord  and  the  Apostles  interpret 
as  specially  spoken  in  reference  to  Christ  and  Christi- 
anity. It  has  ever  been  the  belief  of  all  orthodox 
writers  that  Christ  claimed  to  be  the  Messiah  foretold 
by  the  prophets.  It  is  also  acknowledged  by  Bation- 
alist  divines.  Thus  Yon  Culln  says  that  the  sick  who 
had  been  healed,  the  common  people,  his  own  immer 


240  ^^^^  '^^  FAITH.  [EssATlII. 

diate  adherents,  acknowledged  Ilim  as  tlie  Messiah, 
and  adds,  ^'That  Jesns  approved,  and  even  called  forth 
this  view  of  Himself,  is  evident  from  His  words  and 
His  conduct.  1st.  From  His  answer  to  Peter  (Matt, 
xvi.  17) ;  His  a})proval  of  the  acclamations  of  the  peo- 
ple (Luke  xix.  31,  40 ;  Matt.  xxi.  15,  16).  2nd.  From 
J3is  assuming  the  names  belonging  to  the  Messiah, 
especially  the  titles  Son  of  God  and  Son  of  Man  from 
Dan.  vii.  13,  14.  3rd.  From  His  claiming  the  privi- 
leges attributed  to  the  Messiah,  as  the  full  unfolding 
and  explanation  of  the  Law  (Matt.  v.  IT) ;  the  asser- 
tion that  He  w^as  Lord  of  the  Sabbath  (Matt.  xii.  8) ; 
His  reformation  of  the  temple  service  (John  ii.  13,  20) ; 
His  dispensation  of  Llis  disciples  from  the  usual  fasts 
(Matt.  ix.  14) ;  and  His  claiming  the  right  to  forgive 
sins.  4tli.  From  His  express  declaration  that  He  was 
the  Messiah  (John  iv.  25,  26;  xvii.  3;  Matt.  xxvi.  63, 
64,  &c). — This  his  assertion  that  He  was  sent  from 
God,  as  the  founder  of  a  new  theocracy,  Jesus  j^roved 
to  be  true — 1,  From  the  Holy  Scriptures  of  His  people, 
which  bare  witness  of  His  person  and  His  works. 
According  to  the  general  convictions,  the  Law  and  the 
Prophets  spake  of  an  ideal  theocracy.  There  was  an 
unanimity  of  opinion  as  to  the  passages  which  treated 
of  the  ideal  King,  and  also  as  to  the  particular  features 
of  his  character  as  drawn  [by  the  prophets].  Whoso- 
ever, therefore,  gave  himself  out  for  the  Messiah,  was 
under  the  necessity  of  proving  that  these  features  were 
found  in  him.  Jesus,  therefore,  often  employed  the 
declarations  of  the  Law  and  the  Prophets  to  convince 
the  Jews  that  He  was  the  Messiah.  .  .  .  The  application 
of  the  prophetic  passages  to  Himself  cannot  be  ex- 
plained as  accommodation^  as  Jesus  in  the  circle  of 
His  confidential  disciples,  and  after  Him  the  Apostles 
in  their  discourses  and  Epistles,  adhere  to  this  applica- 
tion."* The  same  author  teaches  elsewhere  (p.  89) 
that  our  Lord  received  the  Law  and  the  Prophets  as 

*  Yon  Ci'.lln,  'Liblische  Thcologic,' ii.  p.  11G-1«,  and  SO;  comp.  Weg- 
schcider,  *  Institntiones,'  §  110,  csi)ecially  iVoiJt'  C;  Kuobcl,  '  Prophetism,'  i. 
S38 ;  De  Wctte,  '  Bibliscbc  Dogmatik,'  §  180. 


Essay  III.]  PKOPIIECY.  j^^ 

tlio  ins|)ire(.l  word  of  God,  and  "  employed  the  prophetic 
oracles  in  these  writings  as  testimonies  to  His  own  ap- 
pearance and  works  (John  v.  39,  46  ;  Luke  iv.  21).  lie 
pointed  out  especially  and  often  that  His  sufferings 
must  happen  according  to  the  announcements  of  these 
Holy  Books,  and  were  therefore  inevitable  ordinances 
of  God:  Matt.  xxvi.  2i ;  Mark  ix.  12,  xiv.  49;  Luke 
xviii.  31-33,  xxii.  37,  xxiv.  2G,  27." 

18.  Now  the  two  prophets  to  whose  writings  our 
Lord  and  the  Apostles  most  emphatically  refer  are 
Daniel  and  Isaiah ;  and  by  their  references  they  not 
only  interpret  particular  passages,  but  establish  the 
genuineness  of  the  books.  Our  Lord  not  only  cites  the 
prophet  Daniel  by  name,  when  speaking  of  "  the  abom- 
ination of  desolation"  (Matt,  xxiv^  15),  but  has  been 
pleased  to  adopt  from  that  book  the  designation  of  His 
kingdom,  and  the  title  which  He  appropriates  to  Him- 
self. The  expressions  '' Kingdom  of  Heaven,"  and 
"  Son  of  Man,"  are  confessedly  taken  from  the  second 
and  seventh  chapters  of  Daniel.  The  latter  expression 
is  particularly  important.  Meyer  says — "Its  simple 
meaning  is.  The  Messiah.  It  is  derived  from  the  awful 
and  striking  representation  in  the  prophetic  vision 
(Dan.  vii.  13)  so  well  known  to  the  Jews,  and  occur- 
ring also  in  the  pre-Christian  book  of  Enoch,  in  whicli 
the  Messiah  appears  in  the  clouds  of  heaven,  as  'The 
Son  of  Man'  (&)9  vlo^  avOpcoTTov),  eurrounded  by  the 
angels  of  the  Divine  throne  of  judgment  (see  Ewald, 
'Gesch.  Clir.,'  p.  79),  that  is,  in  a  form  nothing  dilfer- 
cnt  from  that  of  an  ordinary  man.  Jesus,  inasmuch  as 
in  Him  the  JMessiah  was  come,  was,  in  the  realisation, 
that  Son  of  Man 'whose  form  was  seen  in  Daniel's  vis- 
ion. As  often,  therefore,  as  Jesus  in  His  discourses 
says  'The  Son  of  Man,'  he  means  'The  Son  of  Man  of 
that  vision  of  Daniel,'  that  is.  The  Messiah."-     It  is 

*  II.  A.  ^Y.  Meyer's  '  Comm.  on  Jlatt.  viii.  20.'  Flock  also  says :  '  Donota- 
tur  cnim  is,  qnan  omncx  norunt,  qui  oinnunn  ore  fo-iu?' {soniin  cxitnio  ita 
xocatus)  Jilius  Jwminis  I>a)uelitH'us='Mcss\ASi."  '  I)e  Regno  Divino,'  p.  liil. 
The  italics  arc  Fleck's.  lie  also  refers  to  the  Rabbis,' Wetstein,  Grotiiis, 
Lanipe,  Stahl,  Kuinoel,  Liicke,  TiioUick.  See  also  the  rclerouces  given  above 
to  Von  CiiUn,  Wcgscheider,  Dc  Wette,  Kuubcl. 


242  ^II^S  TO  FAITK.  [Essay  IIL 

needless  to  say  how  often  tins  expression  occurs  in  all 
the  Gospels  in  our  Lord's  discourses,  especially  on  the 
most  solemn  occasions,  as  when  He  describes  His 
second  advent  (Matt.  xiii.  41,  xxiv.  27,  30,  44,  xxv.  31); 
when  He  speaks  of  His  passion  (John  iii.  13, 14)  on  the 
very  eve  of  its  accomplishment  (Matt.  xxvi.  24) ;  and 
when,  after  formal  adjuration,  He  declares  Himself  the 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  "  Hereafter  shall  ye  see  the 
Son  of  Man  sitting  on  the  right  hand  of  power,  and 
coming  in  the  clouds  of  heaven ;"  so  that  it  is  impossi- 
ble to  sej^arate  the  essential  elements  of  Christ's  teach- 
ing from  the  book  of  Daniel,  and  equally  impossible  to 
suppose  that  He  who  came  into  the  world  to  bear  wit- 
ness to  the  truth  would  ground  His  claims  and  His 
most  solemn  doctrine  on  a  forgery.  The  question  of 
the  genuineness  and  authenticity  of  Daniel  cannot, 
therefore,  be  separated  from  that  respecting  the  falli- 
bility or  infallibility  of  the  Saviour.  By  asserting  that 
the  book  of  Daniel  is  nngenuine — a  forged  and  false 
prophecy — men  charge  our  Lord  with  the  nncritical 
ignorance  of  His  times,  or  a  deliberate  application  of 
a  document  which  He  knew  to  be  false.  But  the  stu- 
dent need  not  be  alarmed  at  the  greatness  of  the  issue. 
He  must  remember  that  the  original  assault  on  Daniel 
w^as  made  by  the  heathen  Porphyry,  an  able  but  bitter 
enemy  of  Christianity  in  the  third  century,  and  is  con- 
tinued, partly  in  the  original  form  of  objection,  by 
those  who  deny  all  supernatural  revelation,  make  our 
Lord  himself  a  mere  man,  and  are  as  opposed  to  the 
doctrine  of  Christ's  proper  Deity  as  Porphyry  himself. 
It  must  never  be  forgotten  by  those  who  read  Ration- 
alist books,  that  even  when,  like  Schleiermacher  and 
his  school,  they  use  the  expression  *•  Son  of  God,"  they 
use  it  in  a  non-natural  sense,  rejecting  the  accounts  of 
His  supernatural  birth,  and  regarding  Him  as  the  Son 
of  Joseph  and  Mary.*  1'hey  are  interested,  therefore, 
not  only  in  getting  rid  of  the  predictions  in  Daniel, 
especially  such  an  one  as  the  seventy  weeks,  but  also 

*  Compare  'Essays  and  Reviews/  pp.  82,  S.S,  80,  202,  203,  3,"1,  3."2,  35-1, 
35". ;  aud  iSchlcicrmuchcr's  *  Glaubcuslchrc,'  3rd  edit.,  pp.  Cl-G'.». 


Essay  III.]  PROPHECY.  243 

in  setting  aside  a  remarkable  testimony  to  the  Old 
Testament  doctrine  of  the  Deity  of  Messiah.  The  two 
main  Rationalist  arguments  against  the  book  of  Daniel 
are — first,  that  in  their  opinion  it  contains  accurate  pre- 
dictions concerning  Antiochns  Epiphanes,  Avhicli  they 
borrow  from  Porphyry  ;  and  secondly,  that  it  relates 
miracles,  and  therefore  according  to  their  own  system 
cannot  be  true.  This  is  strongly  "urged  by  Knobel. 
"  The  history  of  Daniel,"  he  says,  "  has  a  legendary, 
almost  a  fairy-tale  complexion,  and  represents  the 
events  in  a  manner  in  Avhicli  they  could  not  possibl}^ 
have  happened.  They  could  have  assumed  this  form 
only  after  a  long  oral  transmission.  For  in  Hebrew 
liistory,  where  numerous  myths  and  legends  occur,  as, 
for  example,  in  that  of  the  patriarchs,  of  Moses,  Ba- 
laam, Samson,  Elijah,  Elisha,  the  narratives  were  com- 
mitted to  writing  a  considerable  time  after  the  events ; 
when,  on  the  contrary,  events  have  a  natural  appear- 
ance, as  in  the  books  of  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  the  first  of 
Maccabees,  there  they  were  generally  committed  to 
writing  at  the  time,  or  very  soon  after  the  events.  This 
is  an  historic  canon,  of  the  validity  of  which  there  can 
1)0  no  doubt."" 

To  men  holding  such  axioms  of  criticism,  the  book 
of  Daniel  must,  as  a  matter  of  course,  be  as  nngenuine 
as  the  narrative  of  our  Lord's  miracles.  Criticisms, 
therefore,  founded  on  such  principles  must  always  ap- 
pear questionable  to  a  thoughtful  inquirer,  even  if  he 
is  not  able  to  show  their  weakness  or  falsehood.  The 
believer  in  the  Gospels  will  feel  assured  that  they  are 
not  unanswerable,  and  a  little  inquiry  will  satisfy  him 
that  they  have  been  answered  again  and  again,  by 
scholars  trained  in  the  schools  of  modern  German  phi- 
lology and  criticism,  and  every  way  equal  to  the  task. 
Within  the  last  thirty  years,  Ilengstenberg,  Sack, 
ITavernik,  Reichel,  Schulze,  Ilerbst,  Yaihinger,  Delitscl 


Oeler,  Auberlcn,  Ziindcl,  have  stood  forward  as  suc- 
cessful vindicators  of  the  genuineness  of  Daniel's  proph- 
ecies.     Kurz,    Kcil,    v.   llofimann,   Drechsel,    13aum- 

*  '  rrophetismus,'  ii.  401. 


144  ^IDS  TO  FAITH.  [E33AYIII. 

garten  liavo  also  confessed  their  adhesion  to  the  ancient 
faith/^'  A  defender  of  the  accuracy  of  Daniel's  chrono- 
logical statements  has  appeared  in  Marcus  von Niebuhr, 
in  his  History  of  Assyria  and  Bab3don.  These  writers 
show,  one  or  other  of  them,  that  those  interpreters  who 
would  make  the  seventy  weeks  end  with  Antiochns 
Epiphanes  contradict  and  confute  one  another;  that 
that  period  must  begin  at  the  going  forth  of  the  decree 
to  rebuild  Jerusalem,  and  must  extend  to  the  times  of 
our  Lord  ;  that  from  the  necessary  and  proved  relations 
between  chapters  ix.  and  xi.,  the  latter  looks  far  bej^ond 
the  days  of  Antiochns.  They  have  answered  the  objec- 
tions from  the  length  of  Daniel's  life,  from  supposed 
contradictions,  from  history,  from  dates.  They  have 
proved  that  some  of  the  supposed  Grsecisms  are  not 
Grgecisms  at  all ;  that  others  were  naturalised  in  the 
time  of  Daniel,  the  Greeks  having  had  relations  long 
before  with  the  Assyrians ;  and,  above  all,  that  the 
Canon  of  the  Old  Testament  was  closed  within  one 
hundred  years  of  the  restoration  of  the  Jewish  State,  and 
the  book  of  Daniel,  if  not  written  before,  could  not 
have  been  admitted  into  it;  that  therefore  the  book 
of  Daniel  is  both  genuine  and  authentic,  f 

19.  The  other  prophecy,  whose  genuineness  Rational- 
ist criticism  has  specially  delighted  to  dispute,  is  that 
which  is  also  specially  vouched  for  by  the  New  Testa- 
ment, namely,  that  contained  in  the  latter  part  of 
Isaiah  (chapters  xl. — Ixvi.)  and  which  seems  really  the 
connecting  link  between  Old  and  'New  Testament  reve- 
lation. It  is  a  singular  coincidence  that  those  portions 
of  the  Old  Testament  which  are  most  essential  to  Isew 
Testament  theology — as  the  Pentateuch,  the  book  of 
Daniel,  and  the  latter  part  of  Isaiah — are  just  those 
parts  which  Rationalist  criticism  has  selected  as  the 
favourite  lields  on  which  to  display  its  skill.  Those 
]\[essianic  predictions,  which  it  can  explain  with  plausi- 
bility as  expressing  Jewish  hopes  of  earthly  grandeur 
and  prosperity,  and  incompatible  with  the  teaching  of 

*  Compare  Auborlcn's  *  Dcr  Prophet  Daniel,'  pp.  1G4-177. 

t  Compare  what  Bishop  Butler  has  suid  :  '  Aualogy,'  p.  ii.  c.  vii.  3. 


Essay  III.]  rKOPIIECY.  j^g 

Christ,  it  pronounces  to  be  genuine.  Tlie  prophecies 
which  represent  the  Son  of  Man  as  a  lieavenly  judge, 
coming  in  the  clouds  of  heaven  (Dan.  vii.) ;  the  Mes- 
siah as  cut  off  (Dan.  ix.) ;  Sion's  King  as  meek  and 
lowly,  and  riding  upon  an  ass  (Zech.  ix.) ;  the  good 
shepherd,  sold  for  thirty  pieces  of  silver  (Zech.  xi.) ; 
l)ierGed  by  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  (Zech.  xii.  10, 
xiii.);  despised  and  rejected  of  men,  cut  off  out  of  the 
land  of  the  living,  one  upon  whom  the  Lord  hatli  laid 
the  iniquities  of  us  all  (Isaiah  liii.) — are  just  the  pre- 
dictions which  it  proves  to  be  ungenuine.  The  book 
of  Daniel,  the  latter  half  of  Zechariah,  and  the  conclu- 
sion of  Isaiah,  which,  if  genuine,  are  fatal  to  Eationalist 
theology,  are  by  Eationalist  criticism  condemned  as 
ungenuine,  in  direct  opposition  to  the  teaching  of  the 
New  Testament.  The  quotations  from  Zechariah  are 
well  known,  the  determination  of  our  Lord  to  fulfil  the 
ninth  chapter  of  that  prophecy  obvious  in  the  Gospels. 
The  condemned  portion  of  Isaiah  is  also  emphatically 
honoured  by  the  Lord  and  His  Apostles.  From  the 
beginning  to  the  end  it  is  quoted  as  the  w^ork  of  Isaiah, 
and  as  fulfilled  in  our  Lord.  John  the  Baptist  begins 
the  interpretation  w^ith  the  opening  prediction  (Isaiah 
xl.)  by  declaring,  "  I  am  the  voice  of  one  crying  in  the 
wilderness,  make  straight  the  way  of  the  Lord,  as  said 
the  prophet  Esaias"  (John  i.  23).  Matthew  xii.  17—21 
explains  Isaiah  xlii.  1 — 3  of  our  Lord,  and  as  the  proph- 
ecy of  Isaiah.  The  corresponding  passage  (xlix.  0) 
respecting  the  Lord's  righteous  servant  is  interpreted 
by  St.  Paul  of  the  call  of  the  Gentiles  (Acts  xiii.  47). 
The  fifty-third  chapter  is  appropriated  by  our  Lord 
Himself  (Luke  xxii.  37) ;  and,  after  Him,  explained  by 
Philip  (Acts  viii.) ;  by  St.  Peter  (1  Epist.  ii.  24,  25) ; 
and  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  (ix.  28)  of  the  sacrifice 
of  Christ.  Chapter  Ixi.  1  is  also  interpreted  b}^  our  Lord 
of  Himself  (Luke  iv.  17 — 21) ;  and  the  end  of  the  proph- 
ecy (Ixv.  1)  is  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Eomans  (x.  20, 
21)  expounded  of  the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles,  and 
the  unbelief  of  the  Jewish  people.  Thus  the  whole  of 
the  prophecy,  from  the  beginning  to  the  end,  is  in  the 
7 


2 40  ^IDS  TO  FAITIL  [Essay  III. 

Isew  Testament  ascribed  to  Isaiah  as  the  ^vriter,  and 
cited  as  being  fulfilled  in  our  Lord,  His  sufferings,  and 
His  salvation.  Both  statements  are  denied  by  Rational- 
ist writers,  so  tliat  we  cannot  follow  the  latter  without 
rejecting  the  teaching  of  the  Lord  and  His  Apostles, 
and  the  common  belief  of  the  Christian  Church  and  the 
Jewish  nation  for  nearly  ISOO  years.  With  regard  to 
the  authorship  of  this  portion  of  Isaiah,  there  was  dur- 
ing that  long  period  only  one  opinion.  One  solitary 
rabbi  in  the  twelfth  century  suggested  a  doubt  on  the 
subject,  but,  wdth  the  exception  of  Spinoza,  was  not 
followed  by  either  Jews  or  Christians.  It  was  not  until 
men  had  ceased  to  believe  in  Christ  that  they  began  to 
question  the  latter  prophecy  of  Isaiah.  The  Buxtorfs, 
the  Carpzovs,  Glassius,  Gussetius,  Cocceius,  Yenema, 
Yitringa,  Scliultens,  Danz,  the  Michaelis,  acquiesced 
in  the  "judgment  of  antiquity.  Even  Paulus  says  that 
the  diction  is  as  pure  as  in  the  other  parts  of  Isaiah. 
Eichhorn  adduced  no  instances  of  later  language. 
Bertholdt  confesses  that  there  are  no  traces  oV  later 
usage.  The  first,  and  the  great  objection  still,  is  that 
Cyrus  is  mentioned  by  name.  When  men  came  to 
teach  either  that  God  could  not  know  beforehand  the 
name  of  one  of  His  creatures,  or  if  He  could,  could  not 
or  would  not  communicate  it  before  the  existence  of 
that  creature,  they  necessarily  thought  that  the  predic- 
tion concerning  the  conqueror  of  Babylon  must  have 
been  written  after  his  appearance.  The  denial  of  the 
genuineness  came  first,  the  criticism  came  after,  similar 
to  that  famous  course  of  law  which  first  condemned  and 
executed,  and  afterwards  proceeded  to  trial.  Yet  the 
process  1ms  led  to  beneficial  results.  The  Rationalist 
dogmatic  criticism  has  been  subjected  to  a  thorough 
examination  by  Ilengstenberg,  Havernik,  Kleinert, 
Drechsler,  Keil,  and  others.  The  objections  have  been 
fairly  met,  and  the  claims  of  Isaiah  to  the  latter  chap- 
ters vindicated  on  various  grounds,  as,  for  example,  the 
plain  references  to  those  cliapters  in  the  books  of  Na- 
hum,  Ilabakkuk,  Zephaniah,  Jeremiah ;  the  circum- 
stances of  the  times  described,  so  exactly  agreeing  to 


Essay  III.J  rKOPHECY.  ^4*7 

the  days  of  Isaiah,  not  to  tlie  close  of  the  exile  ;  the 
historical  relations;  the  similarity  of  style  and  man- 
ner— the  pecnliarities  of  diction ;  the  entire  tone  and 
colouring-,  not  to  mention  other  evidences  external  and 
internah  Indeed,  Ewald  and  Bleek  have  made  a  fatal 
rent  in  the  adverse  criticism  by  confessing  that  the 
passage  Ivi.  9 — Ivii.  11,  was  written  before  the  exile. 
*'  This  passage,"  they  say,  "  may  be  received  with  the 
highest  probability  as  a  prophetic  oracle,  nttered  before 
the  exile,  perhaps  by  Isaiah  himself;  more  probably 
not  long  before  the  exile,  certainly  at  a  time  when  the 
Jewish  State  still  existed,  as  it  is  only  on  this  supposi- 
tion that  the  contents  and  composition  can  be  nnder- 
stood."  * 

20.  Even  that  chapter  which  invests  the  controversy 
with  its  chief  interest  (liii.  1 — 12)  is  supposed  by  Ewald 
to  be  the  vrork  of  a  prophet  anterior  to  the  author  of 
the  other  chaj^ters;  and,  referring  to  the  strong  traits  of 
personal  individuality,  not  personification,  especially 
in  verse  8,  he  says — "  The  helief  of  after  times,  that 
the  historic  Messiah  is  here  to  he  found,  lay  certainly 
very  near  at  handy\  Indeed,  the  prophetic  picture  of 
the  sufferings  of  Jesus  of  E"azareth  is  so  lifelike,  that 
when  it  has  been  for  the  first  time  brought  before  Jews 
ignorant  of  the  passage,  they  have  affirmed  that  the 
chapter  has  been  inserted  in  the  Christian  editions  of 
the  Hebrew  Bible  ;  whilst  others,  not  a  few,  have  been 
brought  by  it  to  fliith  in  Christ.  It  is  not,  therefore,  to 
be  wondered  at  that  for  more  than  seventeen  centuries 
the  Christian  Church  received  the  prophecy  as  genuine ; 
and  that  the  Fathers,  the  medieval  writers,  the'Reform- 
ers,  Protestants  and  Romanists  after  the  Reformation, 
with  the  one  exception  of  Grotius,  interpreted  it  of  our 
Lord,  until  Deistic  infidelity  found  its  way  into  the 
hearts  and  minds  of  so-called  Christian  divines,  and  the 
necessities  of  the  new  theology  imperatively  demanded 
a  new  interpretation.     First  Keology  and  then  Ration- 

*  Bleek,  '  Einleitung,'  p.  45G  ;  Ewald,  '  Prophcteu  des  altcn  Bimdcs,'  pp. 
407,  8. 

t  Ibid,  ia  the  note. 


2^g  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  III. 

alism  set  to  work,  and  the  result  is  a  curious  specimeu 
of  the  alleged  agreement  of  modern  German  expositors 
of  prophecy.  Here  is  one  of  the  most  striking  and  ex- 
tended prophecies  to  be  found  in  the  Bible ;  not  an 
obscure  verse,  where  agreement  is  impossible,  but  an 
oracle  running  through  twenty-seven  chapters  ;  and  yet 
German  commentators  have  not  yet  decided  as  to  the 
fundamental  principle  of  interpretation,  wdiether  the 
subject  is  an  individual  or  a  personified  aojgregate. 
l^either  do  the  two  parties  formed  by  this  difference 
agree  among  themselves.  Of  the  first  class,  some  inter- 
pret it  of  King  ITzziah,  others  of  Josiah,  others  of  the 
prophet  Isaiah  himself,  others  of  an  unknown  prophet 
persecuted  and  killed  in  the  exile ;  *  Bunsen  alone, 
after  Grotius,  of  the  prophet  Jeremiah.  In  the  second 
class,  the  greatest  names  of  Germany  stand  arrayed 
against  each  other.  Eichhorn,  Ilendewerck,  Kcister, 
Hitzig,  Ewald,  Beck,  interpret  the  prophecy  of  the 
Jewish  people,  actual  or  ideal.  Paulus,  Thenius, 
Maurer,  von  Colin,  Knobel,  say  that  "The  servant  of 
the  Lord''  means  the  better  portion  of  the  exiles.  Eosen- 
miiller,  Gesenius,  De  "Wette,  assert  that  he  is  a  per- 
sonification of  the  collective  prophetic  order,  f  ^  For 
several  of  these  interpretations,  these  distinguished 
writers  are  indebted  to  Jewish  polemics.  The  applica- 
tion to  Josiah  was  invented  by  Abarbanel  in  the  six- 
teenth century;  that  to  Jeremiah  by  Saadiah  Gaon,  in 
the  ninth  century ;  that  to  the  whole  Jewish^  people 
was  known  to  the  Jews  with  whom  Origen  disputed, 
and  is  most  generally  accepted  by  modern  Jews  ;  that 
to  the  pious  or  better  portion  of  the  people  is  found  in 
Rashi,  in  the  eleventh  century.  The  ancient  Jewish 
interpretation  was  that  which  referred  the  prophecy  to 
the  Messiah.  From  the  LXX.  it  can  be  inferred  with 
certainty  that  they  distinguished  between  the  servant 
of  the  Lord  and  the  people  of  Israel.  This  is  evident 
from  their  translation  of  xlii.  G  and  xlix.  G,  where  they 

*  See  Ilengstenberg,  *  CUristologie,'  i.  p.  oOG;  Gcscnius's  'Commentary/ 
iii.  pp.  164-17ti. 

t  See  Knobcl,  '  Commentary,'  pp.  GS2-G90. 


E6SAV  III.]  PEOPHECY.  I49 

plainly  make  the  Lord's  servant  "Tlie  raiser  up  of 
Jacob,"  and  "  The  restorer  of  the  dispersion  of  Israel," 
and  "  a  covenant  of  the  people,"  which  words  cause 
sue] I  difficulties  to  Eationalist  interpreters  as  to  make 
them  violate  the  commonest  proprieties  of  Hebrew 
idiom.  When,  therefore,  the  LXX.  inserted  the  words 
"Jacob"  and  "Israel"  in  xlii.  1,  ^^  Jacob  is  my  servant, 
and  I  will  help  him :  Israel  is  mine  elect,  my  soul  hath 
accepted  him," — they  did  not  mean  to  apply  those 
words  to  the  people,  but  to  give  to  the  servant  of  the 
Lord  that  title  which  he  has  in  the  Hebrew  text  in  xlix. 
3.  "  And  He  said  to  me.  Thou  art  my  servant :  Israel 
art  thou,  in  whom  I  will  be  glorified,"  -  where  Gesenius, 
and  before  him  J.  D.  Michaelis,  in  order  to  get  rid  of 
tlie  plain  meaning,  propose  to  set  critical  authority  at 
defiance,  and  oust  the  word  "  Israel "  from  the  text. 
The  LXX.  have  it  here  all  right,  where  they  plainly 
distinguish  between  the  Lord's  servant  and  the  peoj^le, 
and  thereby  prove  that  tliey  thought  the  words  "  Jacob" 
and  "  Israel "  titles  of  this  servant,  and  not  the  name  of 
the  people.  And,  therefore,  in  xlii.  19,  "  Who  is  blind  but 
my  servant?  or  deaf  as  my  messenger  that  I  sent?  who 
is  blind  as  he  that  is  perfect,  and  blind  as  \\\q  Lord's 
servant  ? "  which  they  interpret  of  the  people,  and  not 
of  the  servant ;  they  turn  the  singulars  into  plurals  to 
prevent  mistake — kcli  rt?  tv(J)\o<;  aXV  rj  ol  TratSe?  /jlov, 
KoX  /cco(f}ol  a}OC  i)  ol  KVptevovre^  avrwv ;  Koi  irvcpXcoOrjo-av 
ol  dovXoi,  Tov  Qeol. 

The  early  traditions  of  the  Hebraist  Jews  are  clear 
and  unequivocal,  and  are  identical  with  the  ISTew 
Testament  interpretation,  as  is  admitted  even  by  the 
modern  Habbis,  f  who,  for  polemical  reasons,  inter- 
pret differently.  Aben  Esra,  in  the  twelfth  centur^^, 
says,  "Many  have  interpreted  this  chapter  of  Messiah 
because  our  ancients  of  blessed  memory  have  said  that 

*  This  is  the  translation  pven  by  Goscnins  of  the  text  as  it  stands, 
t  By  modern  Kabbis  are  meant  {hose  who  lived  from  the  11th  century  on, 
when,  partly  owing  to  the  hostility  excited  by  the  Crusaders  in  the  Jewish 
mind,  and  partly  from  their  intercourse  with  "the  Mahometans,  Jewish  inter- 
pretation and  Jewish  theology  underwent  a  great  change,  and  diverged 
widely  from  ancient  Judaism  as  well  as  from  Christianity. 


150  -^I^S  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  III. 

Messiah  was  born  the  same  clay  tliat  tlie  Tenij^le  was 
clestro3'ed,  and  that  he  is  bonnd  in  chains."  Eabbi 
Alshech,  who  flourished  in  Palestine  in  the  middle  of 
the  sixteenth  century,  makes  a  similar  confession — 
"  Behold  our  Habbis  have  with  one  mouth  confirmed, 
and  received  by  tradition  that  King  Messiah  is  here 

spoken  of He  beareth  the  iniquities  of  the 

children  of  Israel,  and  behold  His  reward  is  w-ith 
Him."  The  truth  of  these  confessions  may  be  seen  by 
consulting  the  ancient  books  of  authority.  In  Isai. 
xlii.  1,  and  lii.  13,  Jonathan,  about  the  time  of  our 
Lord,  adds  Messiah  after  the  word  ^'  servant ;"  "  Be- 
hold, my  servant,  the  Messiah."  The  book  of  Zohar, 
regarded  with  the  utmost  reverence  by  all  pious  Jew^s, 
an'cl  parts  of  which  are  certainly  from  the  first  century 
of  Christianity,  also  says  plainly  that  Messiah  bears 
the  sins  of  the  people,  and  that  '*  If  he  had  not  re- 
moved them  from  Israel  and  taken  them  upon  himself, 
no  man  could  bear  the  chastisement  of  Israel  on  ac- 
count of  the  2^^i^^ishment  pronounced  in  the  Law. 
This  is  what  is  written — Surely  He  hath  home  our 
sicknesses.  The  Talmud  (Sanhedrin,  vol.  98,  col.  2), 
the  Psikta,  and  Yalkut  Shimoni,  all  have  the  same 
interpretation.  '' Behold  my  servant  shall  deal  very 
prudently  —  this  is  the  King  Messiah.  He  shall  be 
exalted,  and  extolled,  and  be  very  high.  He  shall  be 
exalted  more  than  Abraham.  .  .  .  He  shall  be  extolled 
more  than  Moses.  .  .  .  He  shall  be  liigher  than  the 
ministering  angels.  'But  He  was  wounded  for  our 
transgressions,  He  was  bruised  for  our  iniquities :  the 
chastisement  of  our  peace  was  upon  Him,  and  with 
His  stripes  wx  are  healed.'  Eabbi  Iluna,  in  the  name 
of  Eabbi  Acha  says,  the  chastisements  were  divided 
into  three  parts  : — one  to  David  and  the  fiithers  ;  one 
to  the  rebellious  generation  ;  and  one  to  King  Messiah." 
Indeed,  such  possession  had  this  interpretation  of  the 
Jewish  mind,  that  it  found  its  way  into  the  prayers  of 
the  Synagogue,  and  tliere  it  remains  until  this  day. 
In  the^  Liturgy  for  the  Day  of  Atonement  is  found  the 
following  remarkable  passage,   which  is  given  from 


Essay  III.]  PEOPHECT.  151 

David  Levi's  edition  of  the  Synagogue  service  books, 
and  in  his  translation.  "  Before  he  created  anything, 
He  established  His  dwelling  (the  temple)  and  Yiiinon.^ 
Our  righteous  anointed  is  departed  from  us :  horror 
hath  seized  us  and  we  have  none  to  justify.  He  hath 
borne  the  yoke  of  our  iniquities,  and  of  our  transgres- 
sion, and  is  wounded  because  of  our  transgression. 
He  bearetb  our  sins  on  His  shoulder  that  He  may  first 
pardon  for  our  iniquities.  We  shall  be  liealed  by  His 
wound  at  the  time  that  the  Eternal  ^vill  create  Him 
(the  Messiah)  as  a  new  creature.  O  bring  Him  up 
from  the  circle  of  the  earth,  raise  Him  up  from  Seir,  to 
assemble  us  the  second  time  on  Lebanon  by  the  hand 
of  Y{?i7ionJ^  f  The  Jewish  editor,  David  Levi,  en- 
deavours to  break  the  force  of  this  passage  by  a  note, 
explaining  "  our  righteous  anointed  "  of  Josiah.  But 
as  he  confesses  that  the  whole  passage  refers  to  the 
Messiah,  with  whose  name  it  begins  and  ends,  and  as 
the  Hebrew  words  for  "  our  righteous  anointed  One," 
literally,  "Messiah  our  righteousness,"  are  a  common 
Rabbinic  designation  of  the  Messiah,  taken  from  Jer. 
xiii.  6,  this  interpretation  can  only  be  regarded  as  a  pole- 
mic evasion  to  avert  the  Jewish  mind  from  the  Christian 
interpretation  of  Isai.  liii.  Even  in  Levi's  translation 
the  passage  speaks  for  itself,  and  as  found  in  the  service 
for  the  most  solemn  day  in  the  whole  Jewish  year, 
proves  that  the  Messianic  interpretation  ^vas  not  only 
the  ancient,  but  the  national  reception  of  the  chapter.  :j: 
The  Rabbinic  tradition  of  two  Messiahs,  one  to  sutler 
and  the  other  to  reign,  seems  also  to  be  a  witness  or  a 
homage  to  the  ancient  interj^retation  of  this  chapter, 
and  to  the  deep  national  conviction  of  the  need  of  an 

*  Yinnon  is  the  Hebrew  word  translated  in  the  A.  V.  "shall  be  con- 
tinued," Ps.  Ixxii.  17.  But  according  to  Jewish  tradition,  it  is  a  name  of  the 
Messiah.  '*  Yinnon,  was  His  name  before  the  sun,"  i.e.  before  the  creation 
of  the  world.  As  it  comes  from  the  verb  'j''2,  to  propagate,  they  seem  to  have 
taken  it  in  the  same  sense  as  T\.'r2%  "^Cn,  "2:,  and  to  have  understood  by  it 
the  Sonship  of  Messiah. 

t  "  The  name  of  the  Messiah,  as  alluding  to  Psalm  Ixxii.  17."  (Levi's 
Note.)  ^ 

X  Compare  also  the  Prayers  for  the  Feast  of  Passover,  p.  72,  where  is 
another  quotation  of  Isaiah  liii.  13,  which  David  Levi  himself  says  means 
the  true  Messiah. 


152  ^^^S  ^^  FAITU.  [Essay  III. 

atonement.  That  tliis  national  persuasion  onglit  to 
have  some  wci<^ht,  even  if  not  sui:)ported  by  the  Isew 
Testament,  Avill  be  admitted  by  candid  readers.  It 
acquires  double  weight  from  the  fact  that  this  inter- 
pretation is  contrary  to  the  worklly  hopes  of  a  con- 
quering Messiah,  so  ardently  entertained  in  the  days 
of  Roman  domination  in  Palestine,  and  to  whicli  Rab- 
binic polemics  still  return  in  order  to  prove  that  Jesus 
cannot  be  the  Messiah.  With  such  hopes  and  prej- 
udices, the  idea  of  a  suffering  and  despised  Messiah 
could  never  have  arisen,  nor  have  been  entertained,  if 
it  had  not  previously  existed,  and  been  received  as 
true  and  genuine.  The  idea  of  pardon  and  salvation 
through  the  sufferings  of  another  was  equally  contrary 
to  the  self-righteous  doctrine  of  the  Pharisees.  The  ex- 
istence and  continuance  of  such  an  interpretation,  is, 
therefore,  strong  proof  of  its  antiquity,  and  of  its 
original  source.  The  national  interpretation  of  one  of 
their  own  records,  under  such  considerations,  ought  to 
have  at  least  as  much  weight  as  the  discordant  and 
controverted  opinions  of  critics  living,  according  to 
their  own  showing,  2300  years  after  the  record  was 
written,  and  filled  with  antecedent  prejudices  against 
a  true  exegesis. 

He  must  indeed  be  a  man  "that  leans  to  his  own 
understanding,"  who  can  lightly  esteem  the  judgment 
of  the  ancient  Jewish  Church,  and  the  common  con- 
sent of  all  Christian  scholars  for  nearly  ISOO  years,  "^ 
and  believe  that  he  has  found  what  such  a  goodly 
company  have  failed  to  perceive.  But  the  Christian 
bows  to  still  higher  authority  than  the  common  judg- 
ment of  this  mighty  host  of  the  great,  the  good,  the 
wise,  and  the  learned,  in  so  many  ages  and  nations  :  he 
learns  from  Ilim  whose  Spirit  spake  in  the  Prophets, 
and  guided  Ilis  disciples  and  Apostles  into  all  truth. 
Christ  and  His  Apostles  have  interpreted  this  chapter 
of  Ilis  sufferings,  death,  and  resurrection-glory ;  and 
the  providence  of  God  has  veriHed  the  interpretation. 

*  The  one  exception  of  Grotius  makes  the  universal  agreement  the  more 
gtriking. 


Essay  III.]  PEOrnECT.  253 

Not  to  speak  of  the  past,  our  eyes  still  see  tlie  fulfil- 
ment of  this  prediction.  The  most  improbable  prophecy 
in  the  world  was  this  which  predicted  that  a  Jew,  de- 
spised by  his  people,  numbered  amongst  transgressors, 
cut  off  out  of  the  land  of  the  living,  should,  neverthe- 
less, prolong  his  days,  be  the  light  of  the  Gentiles,  and 
God's  salvation  to  the  ends  of  the  earth.  And  yet 
this  is  what  has  been  accomplished,  and  is  accomplish- 
ing itself  before  our  eyes.  In  spite  of  all  the  pride, 
prejudice,  and  power  of  Greeks  and  Komans,  the 
ignorance  and  fury  of  barbarian  invaders,  the  self- 
sufficiency  of  human  knowledge,  the  vices  of  civilisa- 
tion, Jesus  of  Nazareth  has  triumphed,  and  triumphs,  and 
is  still  the  light  of  the  world.  The  Christian  humbly  and 
thankfully  accepts  the  teaching  of  the  Lord,  and  the 
testimony  of  God's  providence.  The  wondrous  outline 
stands  vividly  marked  on  the  page  of  prophecy ;  tlie 
fulfilment  as  unmistakably  inscribed  on  the  prominent 
pages  of  the  w^orld's  history.  The  one  answers  to  the 
other,  as  the  mirror  to  the  human  face,  and  he  cannot 
be  mistaken.  No  microscopic  investigations  of  criti- 
cism can  make  the  agreement  doubtful.  He  does  not 
despise  or  disregard  the  labours  of  even  hostile  critics. 
On  the  contrary,  he  carefully  considers  their  every 
suggestion,  thankfully  receives  the  light  which  they 
have  thrown  on  words  and  phrases,  acknowledges  their 
diligence,  their  genius,  their  learning,  and  their  honesty 
so  far  as  their  dogmatic  prejudices  allow  them  to  be 
impartial.  But  Christ  has  spoken,  and  by  Christ's 
words  he  abides.  He,  therefore,  believes  that  the 
prophets  spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy 
Ghost;  that  they  uttered  predictions;  that  many  of 
the  most  seemingly  improbable  have  been  fulfilled,  and 
are  pledges  that  the  remainder  shall  also  be  accom- 
plished. He  cannot  join  in  the  unbelieving  cry, 
*' Where  is  the  promise  of  His  coming?"  He  does 
not  believe  that  "  since  the  fathers  fell  asleep  all  things 
continue  as  they  were  from  the  beginning  of  the 
creation,"  but  that  Christ  "in  His  majesty  rides  pros- 

7* 


254  "^1^3  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  IIL 

perously  on  in  the  cause  of  truth,  and  meekness,  and 
righteousness ; "  and  "  though  the  vision  tarry,"  he 
waits  for  it,  assured  that  it  is  "  for  an  appointed  time," 
and  that  "  at  the  end  it  shall  speak  and  not  lie — it  will 
surely  come,  it  will  not  tarry." 


ESSAY     IV. 

IDEOLOGY     AND     SUBSCRIPTION, 


CONTENTS  OF  ESSAY  IV. 


1.  Introditctort  remarks — practical  ap- 

plicatious  aud  bearings  of  Ideol- 
ogy. 

2.  Professed  objects  of  Ideology— chief 

peculiarity  of  the  system. 

3.  The  contrast  between  this  and  older 

forms  of  scepticism. 
i.  The  two  systems  mutually  destruc- 
tive. 

5.  Proposed  inquiry  into  tho  origin  of 

the  system. 

6.  The  outward  world  governed  by  uni- 

versal laws. 

7.  Difficulty  of  applying  general  princi- 

ples to  the  events  of  secular  history. 
Fiction  and  history  compared. 

6.  The  Ideologist's  view  of  sacred  his- 
tory accounted  for. 

P,  10.   Contrasted  with    that  taken  by 
Christians. 
21.  The  Christian  view  illustrated    and 
confirmed. 

12.  Alternative  set  forth— the  system  of 

Ideologists  repugnant  to  conscience, 
and  to  the  Englishman's  love  of 
truth. 

13.  Historical  inquiry  into  the  origin  and 

development  of  Ideology. 

11.  The  Life  of  Jesus  by  Strauss. 

15.  Early  training  of  Strauss  at  TUbingen. 

10.  Strauss  at  Berlin.  Influence  and  char- 
acter of  Schleiermacher. 

17.  Hegel— his  position,  influence,  and 
general  principles. 

IS.  Publication  of  the  'Life  of  Jesus'— 
state  of  Germany  at  the  time— ettccts 
of  the  publication. 

19.  General  objects  of  that  work. 

20.  First  part  of  the  work  destructive- 

way  prepared  by  Do  Wette,  Semler, 
Gabler,  and  Schleiermacher.    Myths. 

21.  Eesiilt  of  the  first  part— as  regards 

our  Lord's  liistory,  and  discourses. 

22.  Strauss"s  theory  as  to  the  ideal  truths 

which  underlie  tho  history  of 
Christ. 

23.  Development    of  Pantheism  in  the 

work  on  Christian  Doctrine. 

24.  Struggle  of  the  followers  of  Schlcior- 

niacher  and  Hegel  to  shake  off  the 
responsibility.    Other  developments 


of  Hegelian  principles.  F.  Richter, 
Bruno  Bauer. 

25.  Eothe's  work  on  the  Christian  Church 
— comparison  with  Dr.  Arnold's 
view. 

2G.  Ultimate  results  of  Hegelian  princi- 
ples. Feuerbach,  Communists,  Athe- 
ists, Eevolution  of  1S4S. 

27.  Eeaction.  Ideology  brought  to  Eng- 
land. 

2S.  Identity  of  principles  as  regards  a 
future  state. 

29.  Church  and  State. 

30.  Eejection  of  supernatural   agency — 

myths — general  scepticism. 

31.  Position  of  Ideologists  as  ministers  of 

the  Church. 

32.  Doctrinal  safeguards. 

33.  The  practice  of  the  Apostles,  consid- 

ered generally. 

34.  St.  Paul's  proceedings  in  the  case  of 

the  fornicator  at  Corinth,  and  of 
heretical  teachers. 

35.  The  practice  of  the  Early  Church — 

doctrinal  limitation  not  inaugurated 
by  Constantine.  Council  oit"  Nice. 
The  Creed  accepted  by  the  State. 

3G.  The  practice  of  our  own  Church. 
The  Bible  or  Word  of  God  the 
foundation  of  fundamentals  —  tho 
Creeds  fundamental.  Objects  of  the 
Articles.  Subscription  not  required 
of  the  laity,  but  of  ministers. 

37.  Eeason  of  the  difference. 

33.  Subscription  a  promise,  as  regards  not 
belief,  but  ministerial  acts. 

39.  Obligation  moral,  not  merely  legal. 

40.  Extent  of  the  obligation.     Feelings 

of  the  laity  touching  the  meaning  of 
subscription. 

41.  The  alleged  alienation  of  the  people 

from  the  Church.  The  fact  doubt- 
ful — the  cause  not  to  be  found  in 
doctrinal  teaching.  Effects  of  the 
substitution  of  an  ethical  system  for 
Christian  doctrines.  Position  of  a 
rationalistic  minister  in  using  tlie 
Liturtry. 

42.  True  object  and  duty  of  tho  Church, 

Prohafcle  results  of  changes. 
Concluding  remarks. 


IDEOLOGY  AND   SUBSCRIPTION. 


1.  The  term  Ideology  is  strange,  and  certainly  not 
welcome  to  English  ears;  nor  is  it,  perhaps,  m^^cii  to 
be  feared  that  the  system  which  bears  the  name  wiii 
find  many  adherents,  or  exercise  any  direct  miiuence 
upon  the  current  of  religious  thought.     A  summary 
reiection  may,  therefore,  at  first  sight,  appear  to  be  an 
effectual   and  satisfactory  mode   of   disposmg  oi    itb 
claims.     Such,  indeed,  might  be  the  case  ^^  ^^  Ylcreol" 
ered  merely  the  abstract  speculations  with  which  iclcoi- 
oo-Y  is  connected :  but  in  its  applications  and  bearings 
it"  assumes  a  very  practical  form.     It  touches  the  mos 
important  questions  of  morality,  the  most  ^tal  tiuths 
of  reliction.     It  affects  the  veracity  or  trustworthiness 
of  the  witnesses  of  revelation,  the  genuineness  and  iii- 
teo-rity  of  its  documents,  their  origin  and  interpreta- 
tion, and  by  a  strictly  logical,  though  not  perhaps  a 
very  obvious  consequence,  the  relations  between  the 
Church,  her  people,  and  ministers.     Such  pomts  must 
be  scrutinized;  the  true  character  of  the  system  tie 
principles  on  which  it  rests,  and  its  inevitable  re^i    s 
ou-ht  to  be  distinctly  ascertamed.     Should  it  piove 
as  in  all  former  controversies  has  been  the  case,  that 
some  great  truths,  not  generally  recognized  m  their 
fulness^find  in  the  system,  false  and  pernicious  as  it 
may  be,  a  partial  and  inadequate  expression  ;  and  that 
the  very  obiections  of  ideologists  enable  us  to  compre- 
hend, somewhat  more  clearly  than  heretofore  some  es- 
sential characteristics  of  the  Christian  revelation,  that 
result,  at  least,  will  be  welcome  to  those  who  watch 
with  interest,  though  not  without  perplexity  and  ap- 
prehension  the  progress  of  a  religious  speculation  m 


158  ^I^S  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  IV. 

an  age  remarkable  for  fearlessness,  and,  it  may   be 
hoped,  for  sincerity,  in  the  pursuit  of  truth. 

2.  The  object  of  Ideology,  as  it  is  described  in  the 
writings  of  Strauss,  who  lirst  presented  it  in  a  complete 
and  systematic  form,  was  to  reconcile  belief  in  the  spir- 
itual truths  which  he  recognized  as  the  ideal  basis  of 
Christianity,  with  rejection  of  all  the  miraculous  events, 
and  by  far  the  largest  portion  of  the  narrative,  with 
which  those  truths  are  connected.  The  rejection  rests 
upon  an  assumption  of  the  utter  incredibility  of  mira- 
cles, as  irreconcilable  with  philosophical  principles, 
and  as  contrary  to  experience  ;  and  it  is  suj^ported,  as 
we  shall  see  presently,  by  an  unscrupulous  use  of  argu- 
ments supplied  by  various  schools  of  infidelity.  But 
the  chief  peculiarity  of  the  system  is  that,  subject  to 
this  assumption,  it  professes  to  account  for  the  exist- 
ence of  a  belief  in  the  facts,  and  for  the  form  in  which 
the  facts  are  represented,  and  to  explain  the  real  sig- 
nificance of  narratives  involving  supernatural  elements. 
The  ideologist,  or  idealist,  asserts  that  such  narratives 
are  myths,  which  it  would  be  absurd  to  regard  as  true 
in  the  letter,  but  which  may  yet  be  treated  with  re- 
spect, and.  even  with  reverence,  as  symbols  and  repre- 
sentations of  ideas  which  are  of  permanent  interest  and 
importance  to  mankind.  The  facts  did  not,  and  could 
not,  occur  in  the  manner  or  under  the  circumstances 
described  in  Scripture,  but  they  may  yet  be  substan- 
tially, that  is,  ideally  true,  as  products  of  human  con- 
sciousness, as  expressing  at  least  the  aspirations  or  pre- 
sentiments of  a  nature  akin  to  the  divine.  Many  writ- 
ers of  this  school  (and  Strauss  himself  in  several  pas- 
sages) adopt,  at  times,  a  far  more  oflensive  tone,  and 
do  not  hesitate  to  attribute  the  origin  of  large  portions 
of  the  Gospel  narrative  to  the  prepossessions  of  the 
wi-iters,  to  their  ignorance,  credulity,  and  fanaticism, 
or  to  selfish  and  interested  motives.  We  do  not  pro- 
pose to  discuss  those  speculations.  The  only  form  in 
which  the  theory  of  ideologists  is  calculated  to  produce 
any  eff'ect  upon  generous  and  elevated  minds,  is  that 
which  accepts  the  ideal  principles  as  true,  while  it  de- 


Essay  IV.]  IDEOLOGY  AND  SUBSCEIPTION.  ^59 

nies  the  liistorical  character  of  the  relations  in  which 
they  are  bodied  forth. 

3.  One  pomt  strikes  lis  ])rim(X  facie  in  considering 
this  theory  :  and  that  is  the  very  remarkable  contrast 
which  it  exhibits  to  the  position  of  those  who  formerly, 
either  in  England  or  on  the  continent,  denied  the  ob- 
jective facts  of  revelation.  The  strongest  attacks  have 
proceeded  hitherto,  not  only  from  a  distinct,  but  a  dia- 
metrically opposite  point  of  view.  Sceptics  and  infi- 
dels nsed  to  argue  that  the  doctrinal  statements  in  the 
Bible  are  opposed  to  reason,  and  more  especially  to  the 
moral  consciousness  of  man  ;  and  they  rejected  the  his- 
torical relations  chiefly  because  they  involved  miracu- 
lous attestations  to  those  statements.  That  position  was 
at  least  consistent  and  intelligible  ;  the  issue  one  about 
which  there  could  be  no  mistake.  The  Christian  advo- 
cate had,  of  course,  to  prove  that  the  history  was  sus- 
tained by  evidence  sufficient  to  satisfy  imj^artial  in- 
quirers ;  but  his  great  duty  was  to  vindicate  the  Scrip- 
tural representations  of  the  Divine  attributes,  and  the 
principles  on  which  God  is  described  as  conducting  the 
moral  government  of  the  world.  In  the  new  system, 
on  the  contrary,  the  very  adaptation  of  the  doctrines 
of  Scripture  to  our  spiritual  nature  is  taken  as  a  proof, 
or  presumption,  that  the  forms  in  which  they  are  pre- 
sented must  have  been  invented  or  remoulded  by  the 
plastic  imagination  of  man.  It  is  assumed  not  merely 
that  the  existence  of  certain-  feelings,  opinions,  or  as- 
pirations accounts  for  belief  in  the  facts  narrated  by 
the  evangelists,  but  that,  taken  as  a  whole,  the  object- 
ive system  of  revelation  sprang  out  of  the  belief — was 
spontaneously  evolved  from  tlie  half-conscious  opera- 
tions of  the  human  mind.  Thus  the  need  of  a  recon- 
ciliation with  God  was  repudiated  as  a  superstition  by 
the  old  sceptic  ;  according  to  the  idealist,  it  was  the 
feeling  of  such  a  need  which  invested  the  death  of  an 
innocent  man  with  the  attributes  of  a  sacrificial  atone- 
ment. The  longing  for  communion  w^ith  God,  derided 
as  mysticism  by  the  former,  according  to  the  latter, 
originated  the  idea  of  the  incarnation ;  while  all  that 


IQQ  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  IV. 

appeared  necessary  to  substantiate  tlic  doctrine,  in  the 
way  of  miraculous  attestation  or  divine  endowment, 
was  supplied  by  the  credulity  or  imagination  of  the 
followers  of  one  who,  at  a  critical  period  in  the  world's 
history,  concentrated  in  himself  the  reverence  and  ad- 
miration of  zealous  converts.  Clustering  around  one 
gracious  form,  one  wise,  and  loving,  and  truly  sublime, 
being,  human  yearnings,  human  tendernesses,  sought 
and  found  in  him  a  visible  representation  of  the  Deity. " 
In  short,  according  to  ideologists,  the  circumstances  of 
our  Lord's  nativity  and  baptism,  His  conflict  with  Sa- 
tan, His  manifestations  of  superhuman  powers,  and 
predictions  of  the  ipimediate  or  remote  future,  His  res- 
urrection and  ascension, — indeed,  all  the  cardinal  facts 
of  religion, — are  so  far  from  being,  as  older  sceptics 
affirmed,  opposed  to  our  moral  consciousness,  that 
they  are  all  but  adequate  representations  of  the  ideal, 
which,  if  it  could  be  realized,  would  satisfy  the  very 
deepest  and  most  universal  aspirations  of  mankind. 

4.  Certainly  no  greater  contrast  could  be  imagined 
between  two  classes  of  men  who  concur  in  rejecting  the 
facts,  and  employ  nearly  the  same  processes  in  their  at- 
tempts to  discredit  the  sacred  narrative,  so  far  as  it  in- 
volves what  they  are  pleased  to  call  violations  f  of  uni- 
versal laws.  It  may  be  that  the  two  systems  are  not 
merely  contrasted  to  each  other,  but  that  each  contains 
a  principle,  which,  if  disentangled  from  the  errors  in 
which  it  is  enveloped,  may  suffice  for  the  exposure  and 
overthrow  of  the  opposite  fallacy.  Destroying  each 
other  mutually  as  systems,  each  may  leave  a  residuum 
of  truth  available  for  the  defence  of  the  position  which 
they  both  assail. 

On  the  one  side  we  have  the  fact  that  inquirers, 
whom  none  would  hold  to  be  influenced  by  doctrinal 
prejudices  and  prepossessions,  recognize  the  adaj)tation 

*  Strauss  in  his  answer  to  Stcudcl  makes  the  whole  impulsive  force  of 
Christianity  centre  in  the  personality  of  Jesus.  In  the  concluding  chapter  of 
the  '  Leben  Jesu,'  he  acknowledges  the  peculiar  and  unique  grandeur  of  our 
Lord's  person. 

t  See  Butler's  remarks  on  the  objections  to  miracles,  'Analogy,'  part  ii. 
c.  iv.  Ilis  theory,  that  miracles  may  be  referred  to  some  universal,  though 
unknown,  law  has  been  strangely  misrepresented. 


Essay  IV.]  IDEOLOGY  AND  SUBSCEirTIO:?^.  jg]^ 

of  Christian  principles  -  to  tlie  wants  and  instincts  of 
humanity.  This  fact  not  only  contradicts,  but  it  utter- 
ly subverts,  the  position  of  those  who  assert  that  tlie 
doctrines  arc  so  repugnant  to  those  instincts  as  to  make 
the  transactions  incredible  by  which  they  are  attested. 
The  old  dry  scepticism  cannot  stand  when  confronted 
with  such  a  recognition  of  the  intrinsic  excellence  and 
spirituality  of  Christian  truth,  as  is  at  present  actually 
professed  by  the  majority,  or  at  any  rate  by  the  most 
intellectual  and  influential,  among  those  whom  free- 
thinkers regard  as  the  leaders  and  representatives  of 
modern  thought.f  That  form  of  disbelief  has  the 
ground  cut  away  from  under  its  feet.  It  must  be  re- 
garded as  a  mere  subjective  impression,  or  an  indica- 
tion of  disorder  in  a  man's  moral  nature.  The  minds 
which  reject  such  truths  cannot  be  in  what  mere  philos- 
ophers, looking  on  the  whole  matter  from  without, 
would  admit  to  be  a  healthy  and  normal  state. 

Still  the  old  sceptic  has  some  stubborn  facts  on  his 
side  which  are  wholly  inexplicable  on  the  opposite 
system.  There  is  the  fact  that,  since  the  first  promul- 
gation of  Christianity,  multitudes  have  rejected,  myri- 
ads misunderstood,  or  are  utterly  unable  to  realize  its 
distinctive  doctrines, — those,  for  instance,  which  the 
most  thoughtful  idealists  regard  with  admiration.  Tliis 
is  surely  incompatible  with  the  theory  that  the  human 
mind  could  of  itself  have  originated  or  developed  the 
doctrines,  or  that  it  should,  consciously  or  uncon- 
sciously, have  distorted  historical  events  so  as  to  repre- 
sent them  in  a  concrete  form.  Those  doctrines  jar  too 
harshly  with  the  mind  in  its  natural  state,  excite  man's 
fears  too  painfully,  to  admit  the  supposition  that  they 
could  be  the  spontaneous  product  of  human  conscious- 
ness.    Under  certain  conditions,  it  is  true  that  they 

*  That  was  the  opinion  of  all  the  followers  of  Hegcl^  until  they  were 
broken  into  opposite  parties  by  the  publication  of  Strauss's  book.  Of  late 
years  the  denial  of  such  adaptation  marked  a  man's  place  on  the  extreme 
left,  or  destructive  side. 

+  In  fact  the  overthrow  of  the  older  Rationalism  in  Germany,  which  ex- 
actly corresponded  with  English  Deism,  is  claimed  as  the  great  work  of  the 
system  in  which  Ideology  "originated.  See  Schwartz,  Zur  Geschichte  der 
neuesten  Theologie,  p.  05. 


■jg2  '  ^II>S  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  IV. 

find  an  echo  in  the  conscience,  and  give  an  intelligible 
solution  to  many  dark  problems  of  the  universe  :  but 
the  very  lirst  of  those  conditions  is  a  subjective  change 
of  which  neither  sceptic  nor  ideologist  can  give  any 
probable  account.  The  religion  which  involves  those 
doctrines,  which  speaks  of  a  futurity  of  retribution, 
which  contradicts  the  most  widely  spread  prejudices, 
and  sets  up  an  exemplar  utterly  unlike  the  heroes  and 
deities  of  all  nations,  is  one  which  certainly  could  not 
have  been  devised  or  anticipated  by  man.  Thus  scep- 
ticism by  the  very  fact  of  its  prevalence  _  overthrows 
the  position  of  the  ideologist :  while  the  objections  and 
contradictions  of  both  find  at  once  their  explanation 
and  their  refutation  in  that  position  which  we  hold, 
not  only  as  a  matter  of  faith,  but  of  experience.  Chris- 
tian truth,  and  the  facts  of  revelation  by  which  it  is 
represented,  are  in  accordance  with  the  fundamental 
principles  of  human  reason  and  conscience ;  yet  they 
are  only  accepted  by  man  when  those  principles  are 
themselves  distinctly  recognized, — that  is,  when  both 
reason  and  conscience  are  raised  out  of  the  state  of 
corruption  and  degradation  into  which  they  had  unques- 
tionably sunk  when  Christianity  was  first  promulgated. 
The  accordance  removes  all  a  priori  moral  objections 
to  the  consideration  of  the  evidence  by  which  those 
truths  and  facts  are  attested,  while  the  actual  repug- 
nance of  so  large  a  portion  of  mankind  to  admit  the 
doctrine  is  absolutely  fatal  to  the  theory  of  its  origina- 
tion in  human  consciousness,  apart  from  an  external 
supernatural  impulse. 

5.  This  argument  is  not  to  be  set  aside  as  a  mere 
logomachy,  an  attempt  to  neutralize  confiicting  opin- 
ions. It  is  but  one  instance  among  many,  of  the  way 
in  which  truth  is  elicited  by  the  collision  of  opposite 
errors.  Our  object,  however,  is  not  so  much  to  confute 
as  to  convince,  certainly  not  to  exasperate,  conscien- 
tious opponents  ;  and  this  object  may  perhaps  be  better 
attained  by  an  inquiry  how  the  contemplation  of  Chris- 
tianity, being  a  perfect  realization  of  a  perfect  ideal, 
could  have  suggested  to  any  one  such  a  theory  as  that 
which  is  presented  to  us  by  ideologists. 


Essay  lY.]  IDEOLOGY  AND  SUBSCKirTION.  1Q3 

0.  In  some  sense  all  pliilosopliers  admit  tliat  the 
outward  world  is  the  result  and  representation  of  the 
inYisible.  According  to  materialists  all  pha^nomena 
are  the  products  and  exhibition  of  self-sustaining  and 
self-cYolYing  powers  which  ^^erYade  all  nature — that 
is,  of  invisible  forces  known  only  by  their  efiects.  Ac- 
cording to  Theists  the  whole  miiYcrse  is  the  product 
and  manifestation  of  a  creating,  preserving,  and  ruling 
w^ill.  The  events  of  history  are  in  a  special  sense  mani- 
festations of  the  law  which  that  will  imposes  upon  the 
develoi^ment  of  the  human  race.  The  law  itself  is  dis- 
coverable to  a  certain  extent  by  reflection  upon  those 
events ;  Christians  believe  that  it  is  revealed  fully  in 
the  sacred  writings.  All  facts  indeed  are  in  some  sense 
the  concrete  results  and  expression  of  some  absolute 
principle,  some  unseen  power,  some  general  law."^* 
There  is  in  reality  no  such  thing  as  a  dead  matter  of 
fact,  no  chance,  no  casual  occurrence,  in  the  history  of 
the  world.  Joined  one  to  the  other  in  an  unbroken 
series  of  cause  and  eifect,  every  fact,  every  eY'ent  finds 
its  necessary  place  in  the  universal  order ;  each  is  a  link 
in  that  chain,  which  according  to  materialists  had  no 
beginning  and  will  have  no  end,  wdiich  according  to 
Theists  is  fastened  by  each  extremity  to  the  throne  of 
God.  Christians  accept  tlie  statement  that  all  exist- 
ences are  the  result  of  universal  law,  but  they  hold 
that  law  to  be  the  expression  of  a  supreme  intellect 
and  infinite  love  :  deriving  its  force  solely  from  the  will 
of  God. 

7.  Here  we  stand  on  a  j)latform  on  which,  whether 
agreed  or  not,  we  can  at  least  understand  our  relative 
positions.  AYe  may  advance  a  stage  further,  and  that 
brings  us  to  the  real  issue.  It  may  be  true,  that  in  a 
general  survey  of  history,  principles  of  law  and  order 
are  discernible ;  but  it  is  certain  that  the  difliculty  is 
great,  if  not  insuperable,  when  we  seek  to  ascertain 

*  This  truth  is  rccof^nized  quite  as  distinctly  by  Butler  and  all  other  great 
champions  of  Revelation  as  by  its  stron^^est  opponents.  "  All  reasonable 
men  know  certainly  that  there  cannot  be  any  such  thinp;  as  chance;  and  con- 
clude that  the  things  which  have  this  appearance  are  the  results  of  general 
laws,  and  may  be  reduced  into  them."    Analogy,  ii.  c.  iv,  §  3. 


Ig4  ^I^S  TO  FAITH.  [ES6AY  IV 

the  operations  of  those  principles  in  individual  cases,^ 
when  we  would  apply  tlieni  to  account  for  events  re- 
corded by  secular  historians.  When  thought  sweeps 
over  a  wide  expanse,  it  is  confused  by  the  multiplicity 
of  apparently  abnormal  and  contradictory  phainomena — 

"  It  is  most  hard,  witli  an  untroubled  ear, 
Those  dark  inwoven  harmonies  to  hear." 

Certain  personages  stand  forth  from  time  to  time,  in 
grand  critical  epochs  of  the  world's  development,  as 
representative  men,  but  seldom,  if  ever,  are  they  ade- 
quate representatives  of  high,  never  of  the  highest 
principles.!  Striking  indications  are  given  of  an  un- 
seen presence  by  which  all  processes  are  guided,  and 
of  ends  which  all  subordinate  occurrences  subserve. 
But  over  the  whole  there  is  a  mist,  sometimes  broken, 
sometimes  seeming  to  transmit  light  from  a  higher 
sphere,  but  for  the  most  part  dense  and  impenetrable. 
Aberrations  and  inconsistencies,  contradictions  and  di- 
vergencies, confound  the  philosophic  reader  of  history, 
in  the  attempt  to  arrive  at  a  distinct  perception  of  the 
general  j)rinciples,  the  universal  laws,  which  underlie 
and  govern  the  complicated  scries  of  external  events. 

One  unquestionable  result  of  this  fact  requires 
special  attention.  The  discrepancy  between  events  as 
they  occur  in  secular  history,  and  the  absolute  ideas 
or  principles  which  all  events  rightly  understood  ex- 
emplify and  represent,  is  in  point  of  fact  so  far  recog- 
nized by  the  human  mind,  that  whenever  we  read  a 
narrative  in  which  the  ideal  and  real  are  presented  in 
perfect  accordance,  we  are  all  but  irresistibly  impressed 
with  the  conviction  that  it  must  be  fictitious.  Fiction, 
as  Aristotle  long  since  taught,  is  more  catholic  than 

*  Thus  Butler,  1.  c. :  "  It  is  but  an  exceeding  little  way,  and  in  but  few 
respects,  that  we  can  trace  up  the  natural  course  of  things  before  us  to  gen- 
eral laws."  Mr.  Jowett  has  said,  in  an  essay  of  most  melancholy  tendency, 
"  In  the  study  of  ethnology,  or  geology,  in  the  records  of  our  own  or  past 
times,  a  curtain  drops  over" the  Divine  presence." — On  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul, 
vol.  ii.,  p.  433,  2nd  edition. 

t  This  position  and  its  bearings  upon  Ideologists  were  discussed  wiih 
great  ability  and  persuasiveness  by  UUmann  in  the  '  Studien  und  Kritiken,' 
183G,  No.  3.  This  treatise,  which  was  afterwards  reprinted  with  the  title 
'Ilistorisch  odcr  Mythisch,'  induced  Strauss  himself  to  modify  the  conclusion 
of  his  '  Lcben  Jesu.' 


Essay  IV.]  IDEOLOGY  AND  SUBSCRIPTION.  2Q5 

reality  ;  that  is,  it  is  a  more  obvious  and  perfect  exem- 
plification of  general  principles.  A  perfectly  good, 
and  entirely  consistent  man,  a  life  in  which  all  events 
slionld  be  so  ordered  as  to  harmonize  with  onr  ideas 
of  fitness  and  justice,  a  series  of  events  in  wliieh  the 
moral  government  of  the  Supreme  Being  should  be  out- 
wardly and  demonstrably  exemplified,  would  seem  to 
us  from  a  purely  secular  point  of  view  a  sheer  impossi- 
bility. The  Hegelian  is  right,  so  far  as  ordinary  men 
and  ordinary  events  are  concerned,  in  his  theory  that 
the  ideal  is  ever  striving  for  realization,  but  that  it 
never  is  realized.  That  is  an  old  truth  which  our  own 
Hooker  has  stated  in  terms  at  once  more  simple  and 
accurate — "  All  things  besides,  God  excepted,  are  some- 
what in  possibility  which  as  yet  they  are  not  in  act."  * 
The  map  of  a  country  drawn  in  outlines  of  geometrical 
symmetry,  a  narrative  in  which  all  events  are  the  de- 
velopment of  some  great  principle  and  conduce  to  some 
one  intelligible  result,  alike  produce  the  impression  of 
unreality.  "We  do  not  see  such  things.  They  are  con- 
trary to  experience.  Scarcely  any  amount  of  external 
evidence  w^ould  satisfy  us  of  their  truth. 

It  is  just  at  this  point  that  the  controversy  between 
the  Christian  and  the  Ideologist  arises.  The  question 
is  simply  this  :  are  the  same  principles  applicable  to 
secular  history  and  to  the  records  of  a  scheme  which 
is  professedly  one  of  divine  interpositions  ?  f  AYe  see 
perfectly  well  that  if  they  were  applicable,  the  conclu- 
sions of  the  ideologist  could  scarcely  be  controverted. 
To  one  wdio  does  not  view  the  sacred  narrative  as  a 
thing  apart,  not  merely  in  certain  details,  but  in  its 
entire  construction,  resting  altogether  upon  diflerent 
principles  from  those  which  he  is  accustomed  to  apj^ly 
in  historical  investigations,  its  facts,  whether  or  not 
what  is  commonly  called  miraculous,  Imxc  prima  facie 
this  characteristic  of  fiction.  The  long  series  of  events 
recorded  in  the  Bible,  connected  for  ages  with  one 
family,  but  involving  in  its  consequences  all  the  des- 
tinies of  mankind,  unquestionably  exemplifies  certain 

*  E.  P.  i.  5.    t  Sec,  fur  iustance,  Strauss'a  *  Lcbeu  Jcsu,'  Eiuleitung,  §  8. 


IQQ  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  IV. 

ideal  principles,  and  that  tliroiigliout  and  completely, 
in  its  organic  structure  and  in  its  several  parts.  In  the 
opinion  of  one  who  dismisses,  without  argument,  all 
notions  of  supernatural  intervention,  such  a  fact  is  un- 
accountable, excepting  upon  the  supposition  that  the 
history  has  been  invented  or  essentially  changed  in 
character  by  the  writers  who  have  transmitted  the 
traditional  records  in  their  actual  state.  AYhether  he 
attribute  this  to  design,  to  the  influence  of  high  or  low 
feelings,  to  superstition,  ignorance,  prejudice,  or,  on 
the  other  hand,  to  noble  and  generous  aspirations,  may 
be  admitted  to  be  a  matter  of  considerable  import  so 
far  as  regards  his  own  spiritual  state  ;  ^  but  the  result 
is  alike  destructive  so  far  as  regards  the  bearings  of  the 
argument  upon  the  substantial  verity  of  the  Scriptures. 
The  more  solemn  and  majestic  the  events,  the  more 
completely  in  the  ideologist's  mind  do  they  bear  the 
essential  character  of  a  myth.  In  no  portion  of  Holy 
Writ  is  such  criticism  more  destructive  than  in  that 
which  presents  to  ns  the  Life  of  our  Lord — that  perfect 
embodiment  of  an  ideal,  in  itself  without  a  parallel,  in 
its  realization  transcending  all  conceptions  of  the  human 
mind.f 

9.  We  thus  account  for  the  position  of  the  ideolo- 
gist, and  in  accounting  for  it,  we  seem  to  gain  a  singu- 
larly distinct  perception  of  w^hat  is  surely  the  most 
positive  and  peculiar  characteristic  of  Christianity. 
The  attributes,  the  very  nature  of  God,  are  manifested 
in  the  government  of  the  world,  viewed  by  the  light  of 
Scripture,  but  most  specially  and  completely  in  the 
Person  and  works  of  the  Son.  Just  in  this  point  con- 
sists the  real  contrast  between  sacred  and  profane  his- 
tory. Profane  history  may  not,  and  indeed  it  cannot 
contradict,  but  it  certainly  does  not  distinctly  teach, 

*  All  these  influences  are  adopted  by  Strauss,  as  acting  in  co-ordinafion 
with  the  philosophical  m^'thus,  that  which  clothes  in  the  garb  of  historical 
narrative  a  simple  thought,  a  precept  or  idea  of  the  time.  L.  J.,  Eiuleituug, 
§  8. 

+  Thus  even  Grotz,  quoted  in  the  'Westminster  Review,'  July  ISOl. 
Strauss  speaks  scarcely  less  strongly  of  the  marvellous  and  unrivalled' beauty 
of  the  conception.  See  his  answer  to  Ullmunu,  '  Y  ergiingliches  uud  Blcibeu.' 
1839. 


Essay  IV.]  IDEOLOGY  AND  SUBSCRIPTION.  jgy 

some  of  tlic  most  momentous  and  necessary  truths — 
such  as  the  unity  of  God,  the  unity  of  the  human  race, 
the  unity  of  human  liistory,  the  universal  principles  of 
morality,  or  the  systematic  development  of  the  pur- 
j)oses  of  an  almighty  and  loving  will.  Historians,  ex- 
cepting so  far  as  they  have  drawn  light  from  other 
sources,  do  not  in  point  of  fact  distinctly  set  fortli  all 
or  any  of  these  truths.  Sacred  history  teaches  them 
all,  and  teaches  them  not  by  mere  abstractions,  but  by 
tlie  representation  of  events  in  which  our  conceptions 
of  what  is  right,  reasonable,  and  desirable,  iind  a  per- 
fect satisfaction.  Our  only  postulate  is  one  which  can- 
not be  denied  on  rational  grounds  by  any  but  atheists* 
— that  God  has  the  will  and  the  power  of  making  Him- 
self known  to  His  creatures.  That  granted,  the  reason- 
ableness and  therefore  the  probability  of  such  a  man- 
ifestation of  Himself  can  scarcely  be  denied.  The  in- 
tellect, freed  from  the  shackles  of  sin  and  knowledge 
falsely  so  called,  fastens  with  joy  upon  the  one  clue  to 
the  labyrinthine  mazes  of  speculation.  Holding  it  a 
priori  to  be  possible  that  the  Divine  love  may  choose 
thus  to  deliver  us  from  dark  and  dreary  bewilderment, 
we  gladly  acce2:>t  the  pi'oofs  that  such  has  been  His 
gracious  will.  We  believe  that  in  another  state  the 
ideal  will  be  thoroughly  and  universally  realized,  that 
each  act  and  each  existence,  in  its  place  and  its  degree, 
will  be  then  a  perfect  exemplification  of  some  eternal 
reality  ;  and  of  this  we  are  equally  convinced  that  a 
foretaste  and  anticipation  of  that  future  harmony  has 
been  vouchsafed  in  the  Scriptural  narrative,  most  es- 
pecially in  the  life  and  person  of  Jesus  Christ. 

10.  It  is  a  strange  and  instructive  contrast  which  is 
thus  presented  between  the  effects  of  the  Scriptural 
narrative  upon  the  ideologist  and  upon  the  simple- 
hearted  Christian.     The  traces  of  harmonious  accord- 

*  Including  all  schools  of  Panlhcism  which  deny  the  consciousness  of 
God,  and  moreover  those  Deists  who  maintain  the  absolute  necessity  of  all 
manifestations  of  the  Divine  nature  in  the  world — who  make  the  world,  so  to 
speak,  the  complete  manifestation  and  body  of  the  Deity.  Such  are  J.  II. 
Fichte,  and  C.  II.  Weisse,  Schwartz,  <fcc.,  in  (Jermany  ;'F.  Newman  (if,  in- 
deed, he  recognizes  at  present  any  personal  consciousness  iu  God),  and  many 
others,  in  England. 


IQQ  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  IV. 

ance  impress  tlie  former  with  tlie  conviction  tliat  lie 
is  listening  to  the  record  of  a  dream — beautiful  it  may 
be,  and  sigiuficant, — the  dream  of  a  poet,  or  a  saint,  of 
a  spirit  full  of  divine  yearnings  and  sympathies,  but 
still  a  dream — an  empty,  unsubstantial  dream.  The 
Christian  sees  in  that  accordance  the  evidence  of  a 
divine  power ;  of  all  effects  ujDon  his  mind  the  very 
last  would  be  a  doubt  as  to  the  reality  of  the  objective 
facts  which  show  how  that  power  has  been  exerted  for 
the  regeneration  of  man. 

11.  This  is  a  strong  position  to  occupy,  a  secure 
resting-place  for  the  spirit.  "We  may  profitably  dwell 
somewhat  in  detail  upon  the  thoughts  which  it  sug- 
gests. Every  fact  in  the  life  of  our  Master  is  in  accord- 
ance with  a  spiritual  principle  which  it  actually  and 
completely  represents.  Man,  conscious  of  inherent 
weakness,  longs  for  union  with  God.  In  the  incarna- 
tion, God  and  man  become  one. 

Man  feels  himself  exposed  to  a  strange  fascination 
which  attracts  him  towards  evil  and  draws  him  away 
from  God.  In  Christ  he  meets,  baffles,  and  overcomes, 
the  personal  agent  of  all  temptation.  Man  feels  that 
he  is  a  slave  to  nature,  over  which  a  sure  instinct  tells 
him  that  he  is  destined  to  rule.  In  Christ  he  exercises 
that  dominion,  making  all  physical  forces  subservient 
to  his  will.  Man  fears  disease,  affliction,  and  bereave- 
ment. In  Christ  all  sorrows  become  medicinal,  and 
conduce  to  the  perfection  of  our  renewed  nature.  Man 
has  two  great  foes — sin,  and  death  the  penalty  of  sin. 
Christ  crushes  sin,  and  expels  it  from  His  dominions  ; 
death  He  converts  into  the  last  best  friend,  the  opener 
of  the  portals  of  eternal  life.  Moved  by  the  Spirit  of 
God,  the  mind  of  man  from  age  to  age  has  uttered  aspira- 
tions, more  or  less  imperfectly  comprehended,  for  a  Sav- 
iour, a  righteous  Lord,  a  manifestation  of  God  in  a  liv- 
ing human  Person.  One  by  one  the  characteristics  of 
such  a  Person  were  traced  by  the  spirit  of  2:)rophecy  :  all 
the  conditions  of  that  manifestation,  the  ol)ject  of  His 
coming,  the  time,  the  circumstances,  the  various  signs 
by  which  He  might  be  recognized,  were  clearly  pre- 


Essay  IV.]  IDEOLOGY  AND  SUBSCEIPTION.  jgg 

dieted  ;  those  predictions  were  graven  upon  tlic  hearts 
of  the  Israelites,  and  were  even  partially  known  to  the 
Gentiles.*  In  Jesus,  by  a  combination  of  circumstan- 
ces which  seems  fortuitous,  and,  so  far  as  human  agents 
were  concerned,  beyond  all  question  were  imdesigned, 
those  predictions  were  fulfilled,  apparent  contradictions 
were  reconciled  ;  and,  in  a  higher  sense  than  the  most 
gifted  seers  had  imagined,  those  characteristics  were 
exemplified.  We  see  in  Jesus  perfect  man,  the  one 
normal,  ideal  man,  -the  one  representative  of  the  type 
which  was  in  the  thought  of  God  when  lie  moulded 
the  frame  of  Adam,  and  breathed  into  his  nostrils  the 
breath  of  life.f  In  personal  union  with  that  perfect 
man  we  are  taught  to  discern  the  living  AVord,  the  Son 
of  God.  If  the  whole  structure  of  our  religion  be  not 
a  baseless  vision,  if  all  our  hopes  be  not  a  miserable  de- 
lusion, it  is  true,  simply  and  absolutely  true,  that  in 
that  Person  the  perfect  ideal  is  perfectly  real.  We  ex- 
pect, therefore,  to  find — in  fact  we  should  be  confounded 
if  we  did  not  find — in  the  history  of  the  God-man:j:  just 
that  harmony,  unity,  and  complete  interpenetration  of 
all  that  is  good  and  beautiful  in  abstract  princij^les, 
that  perfect  representation  of  inward  spiritual  truths, 
of  which  genius  has  dreamed,  but  whicli  it  has  vainly 
striven  to  realize.  AVe  feel  that  such  a  history  must  be 
sacramental.  And  thus,  in  the  very  facts  whicli  create 
distrust  in  the  ideologist,  we  find  the  strongest  con- 
firmation of  our  faith.  "We  arc  entitled  to  say  to  him 
— You  cannot  surely  be  so  unreasonable  as  to  call  upon 

*  Strauss  adopts  the  view  that  the  whole  life  of  Jesus,  all  that  lie  should 
or  would  do,  had  an  ideal  existence  in  the  Jewish  mind  long  before  His  birth. 
Einleitung,  §  11. 

t  This  thought,  as  might  be  expected,  is  worked  out  very  thoroughly  by 
the  best  divines  of  modern  Germany ;  but  it  belongs  to  the  old  scirools  of 
Hebrew  exegesis,  or,  to  speak  more  correctly,  underlies  all  the  Biblical  in- 
timation of  the  future  Messiah's  person  and  work.  (See  the  account  of  the 
Adam  Cadmon  in  Dorncr's  '  Einleitung  to  his  Christology.')  It  is  not  sur- 
prising, when  we  consider  the  immense  importance  of  the  principle,  that  the 
followers  of  opposite  and  conllicting  systems  of  philosophy  should  have 
claimed  it  for  their  own  leaders.  The  Hegelians  were  especially  anxious  to 
prove  that  in  its  philosophic  form  the  truth  was  recognized  and  taught  by 
Hegel.     See  Goschcl,  Von  Gott,  dcm  Mcnschen  und  dem  Gottmcuschen. 

X  OedvCpuiros,  a  most  pregnant  term,  used  very  frequently  by  the  Greek 
Fathers. 

8 


If^Q  AIDS  TO  FxMTir.  [Essay  IV. 

lis  to  give  lip  any  jDart  of  wliat  you  must  admit  to  be  a 
consistent  and  com])lete  realization  of  tliat  "vvliicli  you 
profess  to  recognize  as  good  and  beautiful  sim2")ly  on 
the  ground  that  it  is  too  good,  too  beautiful,  to  be 
true."^  "We  have,  as  you  must  confess,  full  access  to  the 
ideal  sj)here  in  which  the  soul  may  expatiate  v^'ith  de- 
light. You  cannot  wish  us  to  pass  over  to  you,  with 
nothing  to  gain,  with  so  much  to  lose,  even  in  your 
oj)inion,  in  our  own  not  less  than  all.  You  offer  us,  in 
fact,  nothing  but  the  substitution  of  moral  and  intel- 
lectual sjDcculations  of  the  most  bewildering  character, 
in  place  of  difficulties  which  a  simple  faith  enables  a 
sound  reason  practically  to  overcome.  We,  on  the  con- 
trary, have  every  motive  to  call  on  you  to  pass  over 
to  our  side  :  what  you  have  to  sacrifice  is  a  mere  no- 
tion, a  novel  one  even  in  the  schools  of  philosophy, 
as  to  the  incredibility  of  an  external  and  perfect  mani- 
festation of  the  divine.  What  you  have  to  gain  is  the 
realization  of  the  dearest  and  deepest  hopes  of  human- 
ity— hopes  which  nothing  short  of  such  a  realization 
can  satisfy  and  fuliil. 

12.  It  would  be  a  good  thing  if  our  countrymen, 
and  especially  our  younger  countrymen,  Avoukl  dis- 
tinctly  contemplate  the  alternative  which  they  must 
in  consistency  adoj^t  when  the  claims  of  the  Scriptural 
narrative  are  confronted  with  ideologists.  We  may 
owe  something  even  to  the  fearless  speculators  who, 
obscure  and  pcr2:>lexing  as  their  writings  are  in  other 
respects,  have  at  least  brought  this  question  to  a  defi- 
nite issue.  For  young  men  of  active  and  liberal  spirits 
(indeed,  for  all  who  venture  into  the  region  of  specula- 
tive inquiry,  for  those  more  especially  who  hang  about 
its  outskirts)  the  chief  danger  is  that  they  may  adopt 
opinions  which  are  intrinsically  antagonistic  to  truth, 
without  any  suspicion  of  their  tendencies  and  neces- 
sary results.  It  is  well  that  such  tendencies  are  at  any 
rate  brought  out  distinctly.  Some  few  may  possibly 
accept  the  conclusions  to  which  the  speculations  lead  : 

*  Strauss,  speaking  of  the  theory  in  the  A-cry  imperfect  form  Avbich  was 
given  to  it  by  Schlcicrniacher,  calls  it  a  bcautifurcll'oit  of  thought. 


Essay  IV.]  IDEOLOGY  AND  SUBSCFjrTION.  j^^l 

but  even  for  thein  it  may  be  better  that  tliey  should 
arrive  rapidly  at  the  end,  and  find  by  exj)erience  its 
barrenness  and  emptiness.  The  recoil  from  the  dreary 
void  of  sceptical  negation  has  been  to  some,  and  those 
no  ignoble  spirits,  the  first  movement  towards  the  re- 
covery of  truth.  But  tlie  great  majority  of  Englishmen 
are  extremely  unlikely,  even  for  a  season,  to  find  any 
resting-place  in  a  system  which  makes  the  deepest  and 
most  practical  convictions  dependent  upon  metaphysi- 
cal abstractions,  depriving  them  of  the  foundation  of 
positive  objective  facts.'^'  Once  assured  that  ideology 
simply  means  denial  of  the  veracity  of  the  writers  who 
bear  witness  to  miraculous  facts — of  the  truth  of  the 
whole,  or  of  any  considerable  portion  of  the  book,  in 
which  it  nevertheless  recognizes  utterances  of  a  divine 
spirit,  they  will  turn  aside  in  contempt  from  what 
must  seem  to  them  a  suicidal  inconsistency.  One  great 
characteristic  of  Englishmen — the  characteristic,  in  fact, 
on  which  they  may  justly  rest  their  claims  to  a  fore- 
most (indeed  the  foremost)  position  among  the  repre- 
sentative races  of  humanity — is  the  belief  in,  and  tlie 
love  of,  positive  objective  truth.  Once  convinced  of 
the  untruthfulness  of  a  writer,  no  ingenuity  of  reason- 
ing, no  fascination  of  style,  no  adaptation  of  his  state- 
ments to  their  feelings  or  prejudices,  will  induce  them 
to  listen  to  his  words.  They  may  be  slow  to  discern 
the  symptoms  of  untruthfulness,  may  be  deceived  and 
misled,  but  they  will  have  but  one  short  word  to 
designate  what  they  are  once  convinced  has  no  founda- 

*  Such,  too,  was  the  state  of  feeling  in  Germany.  A  writer,  whose  bias 
is  utterly  opposed  to  orthodoxy,  declares  truly  that  the  orthodox  reaction 
originated  among  men  connected  with  public  life— leaders  of  the  patriotic 
outburst — that  the  religious  systems  of  the  Berlin  schools  were  too  spiritual- 
istic, too  thin  and  fine  drawn,  too  sentimental  and  indefinite  to  jiroduce 
practical  results.  What  men  wanted  was  a  right,  massive,  sturdy,  popular 
Christianity,  such  as  Luther  preached.  "In  truth  tliere  was  a  deep  chasm 
between  the  new  intellectual  character  (Geistesbildnng)  presented  by  the 
leaders  in  philosophy  and  poetry,  and  the  wants  of  the  people.  See  Schwartz, 
'  Zur  Geschichte  dcr  neuesten  Theologie,'  p.  G7.  The  whole  chapter  is  in- 
structive, as  showing  the  utter  unfitness  of  Rationalism  in  any  of  its  forms, 
Idealism  included,  to  act  on  the  moral  and  spiritual  life  of  the  people— that 
is,  to  do  the  special  and  peculiar  work  of  Christianity.  A  form  oi  religion 
which  admits  that  incapacity  stands  self-condemned.  The  arguments  of 
Origen  against  Celsus  are  particularly  worthy  of  considcrutiou  in  their  bear- 
ings upon  this  question.     See  lib.  vi.  2,  and  vii.  59,  CO. 


1Y2  ^^'^^  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  IV. 

tion  in  fact.  The  vciy  last  position  which  they  will 
admit  as  possible,  or  tolerate  as  defensible,  is,  that 
truths  of  infinite  import  should  have  been  transmitted 
from  the  divine  to  the  human  intelligence  by  unve- 
racious  witnesses,  or  through  the  medium  of  events  dis- 
torted by  enthusiasts.  The  Englishman  may  be  nar- 
row-minded or  prejudiced,  imapt  to  deal  with  abstract 
speculations  ;  but  he  has  at  least  had  his  training, — he 
has  been  accustomed  to  weigh  evidence,  to  seek  for 
matter  of  fact  truth  in  the  first  place,  and  to  satisfy 
himself  as  to  the  good  faith  and  correct  information  of 
those  from  whom  he  expects  to  receive  knowledge  or 
instruction.  One  thing  with  him  is  fixed  and  certain  ; 
whatever  else  may  be  doubtful,  this  at  least  is  sure — 
a  narrative  purporting  to  be  one  of  positive  facts, 
which  is  wholly  or  in  any  essential  or  considerable 
portion  untrue,  can  have  no  connection  with  the  Di- 
vine, and  cannot  have  any  beneficial  influence  upon 
mankind.  As  for  the  doctrines  which  are  based  upon 
it,  or  inseparably  bound  up  with  it,  they  must  have 
their  origin  in  another  region  than  that  of  light.  He 
will  not  allow  himself  to  be  entangled  in  the  mazes 
of  speculation.  Without  troubling  himself  as  to  the 
direction  in  which  they  may  lead  him,  he  will  stop  at 
the  threshold :  he  will  say — Before  I  go  one  step  further, 
let  me  know  what  you  say  to  our  Lord's  miracles — to 
the  miracle  of  miracles,  the  Resurrection.  Is  it  a  fact 
or  not  ?  As  for  the  doctrine,  which,  as  you  say,  it  may 
represent,  we  may  inquire  about  that  hereafter ;  but 
let  us  first  know  on  what  we  stand — on  the  shifting 
quicksands  of  opinion,  or  on  the  solid  ground  of  pos- 
itive objective  fact. 

13.  It  may  be  said  that  it  is  unfiiir  to  press  a  man, 
and  by  urging  the  consequences  of  his  opinions,  to 
drive  him  from  a  position  in  wliich  even  for  a  time  he 
may  find  refuge  from  utter  unbelief.  This  considera- 
tion would  undoubtedly  have  great  weight  if  the  ques- 
tion regarded  only  the  speculative  inquirer.  Charity 
cannot  be  carried  too  far  in  judging  any  man's  motives, 
in  bearing  with  his  perplexities,  and  putting  the  most 


EesAYlY.]  IDEOLOGY  AND  SUBSCEIPTION.  ^1^3 

favourable  construction  upon  his  words :  but  wlien  a 
man  propounds  his  opinions  publicly,  works  them  up 
into  an  elaborate  system,  and  commends  them  by  all 
the  graces  and  artiiices  of  rhetoric,  his  object  is  evi- 
dently not  so  much  to  satisfy  his  own  mind,  as  to  influ- 
ence the  minds  of  others  ;  and  for  their  sake  it  is  neces- 
sary to  ascertain  his  meaning,  and  to  show  clearly  the 
principles  upon  which  his  system  rests,  and  the  conse- 
quences which  it  involves.  Above  all,  is  this  our  duty 
when  those  principles  are  introduced  rather  by  insinu- 
ation than  by  direct  assertion,  and  are  directly  connected 
with  the  recommendation  of  disingenuous  acts,  by 
which  the  safeguards  of  religion  are  undermined.  We 
consider  it  a  fortunate  circumstance  that,  on  the  first 
appearance  of  ideology,  so  much  of  its  true  character 
has  been  disclosed.  In  order,  however,  thoroughly  to 
comprehend  its  bearings,  and  to  prove  its  internal  and 
necessary  connection  with  the  ultimate  princijDles  of 
unbelief,  it  will  be  expedient  to  give  some  account  of 
its  origination  and  development  in  Germany.  Some 
of  the  facts  which  follow  are  unknown  to  the  gener- 
ality of  English  readers;  they  certainly  ought  to  be 
known  by  all  who  feel  interested  in  the  progress  and 
tendencies  of  Nationalism  in  its  most  ingenious  and 
subtle  form. 

14.  It  has  been  already  stated  that  ideology  was 
first  presented  as  a  distinct  and  complete  system  in  the 
writings  of  Strauss.  His  Life  of  Jesus  is  universally 
recognized  as  the  beginning  of  a  new  epoch  in  theolog- 
ical speculations.  The  writer  himself  has  lately  as- 
serted, with  characteristic  arrogance,  that  no  work  of 
any  importance  has  since  been  written  upon  any  por- 
tion of  the  evangelical  narrative  without  reference  to 
his  book.  The  vaunt,  as  we  shall  see,  is  not  an  empty 
one.  That  work  did  concentrate  and  systematize  all 
that  infidelity  had  previously  advanced  or  suggested 
against  the  credibility  of  the  Gospels  and  the  whole 
system  of  Christianity  as  an  objective  revelation.  The 
destructive  criticism  of  rationalists,  and  the  m3'sticism 
of  Hegel,  were  brought  together ;  that  to  discredit  the 


2Y4  ^^'^^  TO  FAITH,  [EesAYlV. 

facts  of  revelation,  this  to  supjjly  a  new  foundation  for 
the  speculations  which  Strauss  proposes  as  the  substi- 
tute for  historical  Christianity. 

15.  By  education  and  circumstances,  and  also,  it 
must  be  admitted,  by  some  rare  and  eminent  gifts, 
Strauss  was  qualified  for  the  position  he  assumed.  He 
was  brought  up  at  Tubingen,  an  university  wdiich,  in 
in  its  retention  of  ancient  forms  of  discipline,  still  bears 
more  resemblance  to  Oxford  than  to  any  institution  in 
Germany;  and,  when  he  was  a  student,  it  was  justly 
regarded  as  the  stronghold  of  Lutheran  orthodoxy. 
Among  others  less  widely  known,  but  sound  in  the 
faith,— such  as  Storr,  Flatt,  and  Steudel, — Tiibingen 
boasts  of  the  great  name  of  Bengel.  In  that  school 
Strauss  learned  somewhat  of  the  nature  of  the  princi- 
ples which  he  was  to  attack.  Under  F.  C.  Baur,  since 
known  as  the  most  subtle  and  learned  of  neologians, 
but  whose  tendencies  were  then  scarcely  suspected,  lie 
acquired  the  habit  of  sceptical  investigation,  and  im- 
bibed a  rooted  antipathy  to  what  the  Germans  call 
^'  supernaturalism  " — that  is,  the  recognition  of  a  mirac- 
ulous element  in  religion.  Free  from  any  taint  of  sen- 
suality, he  bore  a  high  character,  to  which  his  influence 
among  the  students  and  professors  may  in  part  be  attrib- 
uted. On  the  other  hand,  utterly  indifferent  to  the 
tendencies  or  results  of  his  inquiries,  singularly  devoid 
of  geniality  or  sympathy,  he  evinced  on  all  occasions 
a  supercilious  disregard  for  feelings  which  he  might 
wound,  combined  with  a  total  absence  of  reverence  for 
the  divine.  His  intellect  was  keen  and  clear ;  his  nat- 
ural aptitude  for  dialectical  subtilties  was  developed 
by  intense  application :  he  had  also  a  power,  not  com- 
mon in  any  country,  and  extremely  rare  in  his  own, 
that  of  presenting  the  results  of  his  labours  in  an  intel- 
ligible and  interesting  form,  with  the  advantages  of  ar- 
tistic arrangement  and  a  ]')erspicuous  style. 

16.  In  the  year  1S31,  Strauss,  until  then  a  Repetent 
or  assistant  tutor  at  Tiibingen,  went  to  Berlin,  at  that 
time  the  centre  of  all  speculative  movements  in  the- 
ology and  philosophy.     Schleicrmacher  stood   at  the 


Essay  IV.]  IDEOLOGY  AND  SUBSCRIPTION.  j/75 

head.  Few  men  have  exercised  a  wider  or  more  pow- 
erful influence.  His  vast  learning  and  vigorous  intel- 
lect ;  his  lively  and  persuasive  eloquence ;  above  all, 
his  peculiar  mode  of  inculcating  religious  principles, 
attracted  many  of  the  noblest  and  most  powerful 
minds.  The  characteristic  of  his  system  was  the 
prominence  which  he  gave  to  religious  feeling — sub- 
jective feeling  was  to  him  and  the  most  inflnential  of 
his  followers  the  one  test  both  of  the  importance  and 
reality  of  spiritual  truths :  and  to  his  teaching  may  be 
traced  that  aversion  to  what  is  called  dogmatism,  which 
distinguishes  many  of  our  own  writers  who,  without 
adopting  all  his  views,  have  passed  through  his  school. 
His  influence  over  Strauss,  however,  depended  npon 
other  qualities.  Schleiermacher  combined  with  a  pe- 
culiarly genial  and  winning  sweetness  of  character, 
and  with  a  dreamy  but  graceful  and  attractive  senti- 
mentalism,  a  no  less  remarkable  talent  for  sarcastic  and 
reckless  criticism.  IN  o  man  was  more  acute  in  detect 
ing  flaws,  none  more  unscrupulous  in  exposing  w^hat  he 
deemed  to  be  inconsistencies,  l^one  had  hitherto  gone 
so  far  in  discrediting  large  portions  of  the  Scriptural 
narrative,  or  in  assailing  the  authenticity  of  canonical 
books.*    "When  Strauss  came  to  Berlin,  Schleiermacher 

*  This  statement  may  seem  too  harsh.  Schwartz,  however,  a  critic  who 
has  the  greatest  admiration  and  even  reverence  for  Schleiermacher,  observes 
that  the  critical  processes  by  which  Strauss  attempted  to  overthrow  the 
sacred  history  were  learned  in  the  school  of  Schleiermacher.  "  Originating 
with  Semler  and  Eichhorn,  they  had  been  developed  in  rationalistic  circles, 
and  readied  their  JiigJiest  jtoint  in  the  labours  of  De  Wette,  Schleiermacher, 
and  Gieseler."  Zur'Geschichte  der  neuesten  Thcologie,  p.  33.  A  most  im- 
portant statement  for  the  young  student  of  German  theology,  Gieseler  him- 
self gives  the  following  account  of  that  great  man's  principles: — "Schleier- 
macher went  very  far  in  his  concessions  to  modern  opinion.  He  admitted 
that  the  piety  of  a  Pantheist  might  be  identical  with  that  of  a  Monotheist,  and 
reconcilable  even  with  Christianity.  That  piety,  moreover,  could  coexist 
with  the  theory  which,  denying  the  continuance  of  personal  existence,  re- 
gards the  common  spirit  of  humanity  as  the  source  of  individual  souls,  the 
true  living  unity,  of  which  alone  eternity  and  immortality  can  be  predicated  ; 
individual  souls  being  its  transitory  actions,  or  manifestations.  For  the 
Christian  as  such  there  is  no  guarantee  for  personal  duration,  save  that  which 
is  found  in  the  belief  of  the  eternal  union  of  the  Divine  Essence  with  the 
human  nature  in  Christ.  The  historical  connection  of  Christianity  with 
Judaism  is  external,  precisely  the  same  as  with  heathenism — hence  he  assigns 
to  the  Old  Testament  no  normal  authority.  Angels  are  creatures  of  the 
imagination — in  the  idea  of  the  devil  he  linds  an  internal  contradiction — but 
lie  consents  to  retain  angels  and  devils  for  liturgical  nse.    The  resurrection  of 


2Yg  AIDS  TO  FAITn.  [Essat  IV, 

had  been  giving  a  course  of  lectures  on  tlic  life  of 
Jesus,  wliicli  are  characterized  by  a  friendly  critic  as 
full  of  acute  combinations  and  destructive  scepticism. 
Those  lectures  were,  indeed,  the  chief  attraction  which 
drew  him  thither.*  They  gave  the  strongest  impulse 
to  his  own  work  of  demolition. 

17.  It  was  not,  however,  in  the  system  of  Schleier- 
macher  that  Strauss  found  the  true  key  to  his  own  posi- 
tion. He  was  abundantly  supplied  with  weapons  for 
attack.  Eationalists  and  sentimentalists  had  under- 
mined the  outworks  of  revelation :  but  he  saw  plainly 
that  something  more  and  something  different  was 
needed  to  account  for  the  origin  of  Christianity ;  and 
it  was  perfectly  clear  to  him  that  the  battered  and  dis- 
figured fabric  of  w^hat  he  regarded  as  mere  superstition 
could  not  be  demolished  and  swept  away,  unless  it 
were  displaced  by  a  system  better  calculated  to  meet 
the  requirements  of  the  human  mind. 

It  seems  strange  that  he  should  have  fixed  upon 
Ilegelianism  for  that  purpose ;  for  Ilegel,  then  in  the 
full  noontide  of  his  influence,  was  regarded  as  the  bul- 
wark of  orthodox  conservatism  both  in  church  and 
state.  The  fundamental  doctrines  of  religion,  the  dog- 
matic forms  of  the  church,  even  the  most  abstruse  and 
difhcult  speculations  of  theologians  and  schoolmen, 
were  at  that  very  time  maintained  by  professors  of  the 
school  of  Ilegel,  who  were  recognized  by  him  as  faith- 
ful and  intelligent  expositors  of  his  views.  It  was  be- 
lieved that  he  had  effected  a  real  and  permanent  recon- 
ciliation between  philosophy  and  religion.  Faith  and 
knowledge  henceforth  were  to  work  together  in  perfect 
harmony ;  all  apparent  contradictions  were  to  be  ab- 
sorbed ;  all  perplexing  problems  to  find  a  solution  in 
the  higher  sphere  of  metaphysical  abstraction.    A  new 

the  body  and  the  last  judgment  are  to  be  understood  not  as  positive  truths, 
but  as  the  outward  represeututions  of  j^oncral  truths.  Eternal  damnation  is 
rejected  as  inconceivable." — Kirchcntjceschichte  der  neuesten  Zeit,  p.  240. 

*  See  Schwartz,  1.  c.  Strauss  himself  says  that  he  procured  the  MS.  of 
the  lectures  which  had  been  given  before  his  arrival.  lie  points  out  the  dif- 
ference between  his  own  views  and  those  of  Schleiermacher,  who  wished  to 
retain,  by  help  of  naturalistic  interpretations,  the  substance  of  the  Gosi>cl 
narration.     His  statement  is  quite  compatible  with  that  of  Schwartz. 


Essay  IV.]  IDEOLOGY  AND  SUBSCRIPTION.  j-jy 

s.ystem  of  optimism  was  fomided,  wliicli  acknowleclgecl 
the  State  not  merely  as  a  necessary  organization,  but  as 
the  highest  realization  of  the  ideal  of  society,  and  re- 
jected all  factious  and  democratic  tendencies  as  perni- 
cious errors ;  while,  in  their  ecclesiastical  tendencies, 
Hegel's  principles  seemed  rather  to  verge  towards  Ro- 
manism than  towards  the  dissolution  of  all  formal  au- 
thority, which  appeared  imminent  as  a  development  of 
infidelity  under  the  thin  disguise  of  rational  Protes- 
tantism. He  was,  in  fact,  by  taste,  habits,  and  disposi- 
tion a  conservative,  both  as  regarded  the  outward  frame- 
work of  church  and  state,  and  the  dogmatic  represen- 
tation of  religious  truths.  It  may  seem  strange ;  but 
it  was  a  proof  of  the  clear  insight  and  vigorous  intel- 
lect of  Strauss,  that  in  the  fundamental  principles  of 
that  philosopher's  system,  he  discerned  the  motive 
power  which  he  required  to  overthrow  all  which  it  ap- 
peared to  accept  so  unreservedly  and  to  defend  with 
unprecedented  success. 

We  can  scarcely  hope,  and  will  not  attempt,  to  state 
those  principles  in  a  clear  or  even  intelligible  form  ; 
but  some  of  the  results,  as  Strauss  apprehended  and 
applied  them,  are  practical  enough.  His  exposition, 
moreover,  has  been  justified  both  by  the  adhesion  of 
a  considerable  number  of  those  who  were  once  the 
stanchest  maintainers  of  their  master's  orthodoxy,  and 
by  the  ultimate  overthrow  of  the  system  itself,  which 
is  now,  in  the  form  which  Hegel  gave  it,  altogether 
a  thing  of  the  past."*^  Under  the  abstruse  and  cloudy 
statements  of  that  philosopher,f  Strauss  saw  clearly 

■""  M.  Schcrci-  says — "  II  a  fait  faillite,  et  c'cst  le  positivisme  qui  a  pris  la 
suite  de  ses  uilaires."  And  elsewhere — "  Ce  buUc  de  savou  a  crcvc  depuis 
longtemps." 

t  Hegel  taught  that  the  universe  is  but  a  continuous  evolution  of  an  in- 
finite potentiality;  that  the  absolute  is  not  found  either  in  the  ideal  sub- 
stratum, which  is  not  a  positive  existence,  or  in  matter  of  fact  phenomena, 
which  have  no  permanent  realit}^  but  in  a  perpetual  process  of  self-develop- 
ment. Whatever  exists  has  a  necessary  but  a  merely  transitory  existence. 
The  ideal  is  ever  tending  to  realization,  but  is  never  perfectly,  and  cannot  be 
permanently,  realized.  It  was  a  question  among  his  followers  whether  he 
regarded  Christianity,  in  the  Person  of  its  Founder,  as  an  exception  from 
these  sweepingconclusions — whether  his  system  was  compatible  with  Theism. 
It  seems  to  me  scarcely  i)0ssible  to  reconcile  many  statements  in  his  first 
considerable  work  (the  *  Phauomcuologic  dcs  Gcistcs')  with  belief  in  a  per- 

8* 


l^jQ  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  IV. 

involved  the  positive  denial  of  the  personality  of  the 
Godhead,  the  assertion  of  the  phenomenal  and  evanes- 
cent, the  incomplete  and  inadequate  character  of  all 
existences,  the  absorption  of  individuality ;  in  short, 
a  complete  system  of  pantheism,  more  idealistic  than 
any  previous  development,  and  at  the  same  time  more 
capable  of  explaining  the  events  of  history  both  profane 
and  sacred. 

18.  Strauss  took  some  time  to  prepare  a  work  in 
which  he  applied  these  principles  to  the  overthrow  of 
Christianity.  The  'Life  of  Jesus'  was  published  in 
1835.  It  appeared  at  a  period  of  outward  calm  ;  there 
was  a  singular  cessation  just  then  of  controversy,  a 
general  feeling  of  security.  Hegel  had  been  dead  four 
years.  He  had  departed,  so  to  speak,  in  the  odour  of 
orthodoxy.  Marheineke,  Daub,  and  Goschel  were  recog- 
nized as  true  expositors  of  his  system,  and  as  sound  de- 
fenders of  the  faith.  Schleiermacher,  too,  was  gone. 
His  followers  claimed  for  him  the  merit  of  having  de- 
stroyed the  older  forms  of  rationalism,  which  had  sunk 
into  utter  contempt.  Neander  at  Berlin,  Tholuck  at 
Halle,  Steudel  at  Tubingen,  and  a  host  of  theologians 
of  various  shades  of  oiDinion,  ranging  from  orthodoxy 
to  neology,  but  animated  for  the  most  part  by  deep 
Cliristian  sympathies,  occupied  the  professorial  chairs ; 
while  a  strong  and  united  band  of  men,  sound  in  the 
old  Bible  orthodoxy,  ^vi'ought  more  directly  upon  the 
popular  mind  through  the  pulpit.  The  effect  of  the 
publication  of  Strauss's  book  is  indescribable.  Friends 
and  enemies  cannot  find  words  strong  enough  to  express 
the  consternation,  the  horror  and  indignation  of  all  who 

sonal  God.  It  is  certain  that  no  Christian  theologians  now  accept  the  appli- 
cations of  his  general  princii)les  to  Christian  dogmas.  Chalybanis  admits 
the  "comfortless  results"  of  the  whole  system.  On  the  attempts  of  Mar- 
heineke and  Goschel,  some  valuable  remarks  may  be  read  in  Gieseler's 
'  Kirchengeschichtc  d.  n.  Z.,'  p.  242.  Strauss  also  gives  a  clear  account  of 
the  disputes  between  the  scholars  of  Hegel  in  his  *  Glaubenslehre,'  p.  520  if. 
It  is,  however,  certain  that  Hegel  wished  to  maintain  religion — that  he  re- 
garded the  establishment  of  Theism  as  the  highest  problem  and  work  of 
philosophy,  and  utterly  detested  all  sceptical  and  destructive  criticism, 
especially'  that  of  Schleiermacher — an  aversion  extending  even  to  purely 
secular  writers,  as  Niebuhr.  His  last  work,  on  the  Philosophy  of  Religion, 
is  full  of  bea\itiful  and  devout  aspirations:  whether  they  are  consistent  with 
his  philosophy  or  not,  is  another  question. 


Essay  IV.]  IDEOLOGY  AND  SUBSCEirTION.  I79 

retained  a  vestige  of  reverence  for  religion.  An  electric 
sliock  running  throngli  all  bosoms,  a  trumpet  sounding 
the  signal  for  a  conflict  for  life  and  death,  an  earthquake 
shaking  the  foundations  of  all  human  hopes  ;  such  are  the 
terms  which  historians  use  in  speaking  of  the  shock.* 
Our  own  time  has  lately  had  an  example  of  the  effect 
which  is  produced  when  men  know^n  only  as  able,  indus- 
trious scholars,  of  unspotted  character,  and  exemplary  in 
all  personal  relations,  come  forward  as  the  opponents 
of  truths  which  they  are  bound  to  uphold.  The  excite- 
ment and  panic,  if  panic  it  can  be  called  which  brought 
hosts  of  combatants  to  the  front  of  the  battle,  had  then 
a  further  justification  in  the  talents,  unity  of  purpose, 
straightforward  audacity  of  the  author — in  his  thorough 
mastery  of  all  the  weapons  of  attack,  in  the  coherence 
of  his  philosophical  principles — principles,  as  we  have 
shown  already,  accepted  by  multitudes  of  thouglitful 
men — above  all  in  the  state  of  the  public  mind,  shaken 
by  rationalism,  distrustful  of  its  guides,  unable  to  com- 
prehend the  position  of  the  recognized  defenders  of 
religion,  and  tossed  to  and  fro  by  conflicting  systems 
of  doctrine  and  interpretation.  Strauss  was  at  least  a 
brave  and  open  foe,  showed  his  true  colours,  and  nailed 
them  to  the  mast,  and  met  every  attack  manfully, — 
open  as  he  certainly  was  to  the  imputation  of  making 
a  dishonest  use  of  a  position  entrusted  to  him  for  the 
defence  of  Christianity. 

19.  In  that  w^ork  Strauss  had  two  distinct  objects. 
The  first  was  to  set  aside  all  supernatural  events,  to  prove 
that  the  Divine  did  not  manifest  itself  in  the  manner 
related,  and  that  the  actual  occurrences  were  not  di- 
vine.f  The  other  was  to  set  up  a  system  in  which  all 
that  Christianity  attempts  to  accomplish  should  be  dis- 
entangled from  its  imj)erfect  form,  and  developed,  by 

*  Compare  Schwartz,  Zur  Geschichte  dcr  neuesten  Theologie,  and  M.  E. 
Scherer,  Revue  des  Deux  Mondes,  Fob.  18G1 ;  and  Gieselcr.  Strauss  himself 
speaks  with  great  exultation  of  the  shrieks  of  believers.  See  the  introduction 
to  his  second  edition. 

■f-  Introduction,  §  1.  Sec  also  his  Streitschriffen,  part  iii.,  p.  59.  He  gives 
a  full  account  of  the  original  plan  of  his  work  (shownig  that  the  second  part 
was  that  to  which  he  attached  most  importance)  in  the  treatise  '  Vcrhtiltuiss 
dcr  Hegel'schen  Philosophic  zur  Kritik.' 


180 


AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  lY. 


a  pliilosopliical  process,  from  universal  and  permanent 
truths. 

20.  In  the  first])  art  of  the  work  Strauss  collected  all 
the  objections  which  a  remorseless  criticism  liad  raised 
against  the  historical  veracity  of  the  sacred  writers : 
he  completed  them,  gave  them  a  sharper  point  and 
keener  edge,  combined  them  in  a  systematic  form,  and 
reduced  them  to  a  fundamental  thought.*  De  Wette 
had  already  laid  down  the  position,  that  all  men  of 
cultivated  minds  rejected  the  miraculous  narratives  of 
the  Bible,  and  that  the  only  question  was  how  to  ac- 
count for  their  origin.f  Strauss  addressed  himself  to 
that  question.  First  laying  dowm  far  more  broadly  the 
general  position,  that  miracles  are  a  priori  incredible, 
on  the  ground  that  the  workings  of  the  Divine  in  the 
world  proceed  in  accordance  with  fixed,  unvarying, 
and  imiversal  laws,  w^hich  utterly  exclude  the  possi- 
bility of  miracles,  %  lie  refers  all  accounts  of  supernatu- 
ral interventions  to  one  origin — that  of  Myths.  Here 
again  he  adopts  what  scejDtics  or  infidels  had  previously 
suggested.  Semler  had  aj)plied  to  the  account  of 
Samson  and  Esther  the  saying  of  Heyne,  that  all  the  his- 
tory and  philosophy  of  primitive  antiquity  originated 
in  myths.  Yater,  and  still  more  decidedly  De  Wette, 
had  advocated  the  mythical  interpretation  of  a  large 
portion  of  the  Old  Testament§  history.  But,  as  Strauss 
complains,  that  system  had  been  applied  inconsistently 
and  timidly  even  to  the  Old  Testament,  and  had  stood 
side  by  side  with  naturalistic  interpretations,  while  few 
had  ventured  to  bring  it  to  bear  upon  any  portion  of 
the  Gospel  narrative.  Yet  even  here  the  way  had  been 
prepared.  Schleiermacher  had  not  Iiesitated  to  call  the 
history  of  the  Temptation  a  myth.     Gabler,  and  others 

*  Sclnvart?:,  *  Zur  Gcschichtc  der  ncuestcn  Thcoloc;io,'  p.  104. 

t  That  position  was  taken  in  the  work  which  in  (Jerniany,  some  tliirty 
years  ago,  was  put  into  my  bands  as  an  introduction  to  the  study  of  the 
llcbrcw  Scriptures. 

X  Strauss  uses  precisely  the  same  languasie  as  Baden  Powell.  See  his 
Introduction,  vol.  i.  p.  71  of  the  English  translation.  In  p.  87,  §  16,  he  gives 
the  marks  by  which  the  unhistorical  character  of  a  narrative  niAy  be  h  priori 
demonstrated — the  principal  is  the  impossibility  of  any  arbitrary  act  of  inter- 
position by  the  absolute  cause. 

§  Kritik  der  Mosaischcn  Gcschichtc,  quoted  by  Strauss.    Introduction,  §  8. 


Essay  IV.]  IDEOLOGY  AND  SUBSCKIPTION.  131 

of  liis  sclioolj  held  that  all  portions  of  the  narrative 
which  involved  angelic  appearances  had  the  essential 
characteristics  of  myth.  Some  theologians  had  gone  so 
far  as  to  bring  the  details,  first  of  the  Nativity,  and 
then  of  the  Resurrection,  nnder  the  same  category. 
The  barriers  had  been  thrown  doAvn,  and  all  that^  re- 
mained for  Strauss  to  do  was  to  carry  out  the  principle 
consistently  into  the  wdiole  structure  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. To  use  his  own  words :  "  Others  had  driven 
through  the  grand  portal  of  myths  into  the  evangelical 
history,  and  had  passed  out  again  by  the  same ;  but 
as  for  all  the  intermediate  portions,  they  were  contented 
to  pursue  the  crooked  and  laborious  paths  of  natural 
interpretation."  lie  left  himself  no  portion  of  our 
Lord's  life  untouched.  He  saw  too  clearly  the  internal 
coherence  of  all  its  parts ;  he  discerned  the  unity  of 
the  principles  which  underlie  all  its  phenomena :  all 
or  nothing  must  be  admitted.  Eejecting  with  disdain 
the  subterfuges  of  rationalist  and  semi-rationalist,  he 
would  not,  as  he  says,  set  up  the  authority  of  one 
Evangelist  against  another.  The  testimony  of  one  is 
worth  as  much,  or  to  speak  more  correctly,  is  worth 
as  little  as  the  others.^'  A  helium  omnmm  contra 
omnes  is  waged ;  from  beginning  to  end  he  finds  no 
single  spot  of  firm  historical  ground,  scarcely  any 
mixture  of  ascertainable  fact,  amid  the  legendary  and 
mythical  representations.f 

Strauss  enters,  of  course,  fully  into  the  investiga- 
tion of  myths4  which  had  already  been  classified  under 
three  heads ;  the  historical,  which  confound  the  natu- 
ral and  supernatural ;  the  philosophical,  which  clothe  in 

*  Schwartz,  Zur  Geschichte,  p.  110. 

•f  To  allow  time  for  such  a  transmutation  of  history,  which,  as  all  historians 
agree,  is  only  possible  in  times  when  letters  are  unknown  or  unused,  when 
events  are  transmitted  by  ignorance  and  superstition,  Strauss  was  driven  to 
the  theory,  that  all  the  Gospel  narratives  were  the  product  of  the  second  cen- 
tury, a  theory  which  is  admitted  universally,  even  by  unchristian  critics,  to 
be  irreconcilable  with  fixcts:  with  the  failure  of  that  theory  the  whole  myth- 
ical system  collapses.  Dr.  Arnold,  who  had  not  read  the  Ijook,  judging  of  it 
merely  from  a  review,  saw,  of  course,  this  iioint.  "  The  idea  of  men  writing 
mythic  histories  between  the  time  of  Livy  and  Tacitus,  and  St.  Paul  mistaking 
such  for  realities  !  "     Life,  ii.  p.  58. 

X  L.  J.,  Introduction,  p.  26. 


132  ^II^S    TO    FAITH.  [EesATlV, 

tlie  garb  of  historical  narrative  some  thought  or  idea 
of  the  time ;  and  the  poetical,  in  which  tlie  original 
idea  is  almost  obscured  by  the  veil  which  the  fancy  of 
the  poet  has  woven  aronnd  it.  All  tliese  he  liolds  to 
be  blended  in  various  proportions  in  the  Gospel  narra- 
tive— the  great  source  of  all  the  mythical  embellish- 
ments being  the  prepossessions  of  the  countrymen  and 
followers  of  our  Lord  touching  the  person  and  works 
of  the  expected  Messiah  :  the  next  source  being  that 
peculiar  impression  which  was  left  by  the  personal 
character,  actions,  and  fate  of  Jesus,  and  which  served 
to  modify  the  Messianic  idea  in  the  minds  of  the  23eoi:)le. 
21.  The  residuum  from  this  system  is  thus  stated 
by  one*  who  is  far  from  an  unfriendly  critic.  The 
myth  has  eaten  into  the  very  heart  of  the  narrative. 
There  remains  but  a  scanty  framework  of  the  life  of  Jesus. 
That  He  was  brought  up  in  Nazareth,  was  baptized  by 
John  ;  that  He  formed  disciples,  and  taught  in  various 
districts  of  Palestine  ;  that  He  opposed  everywhere  the 
outwardness  of  pharisaism,  and  proclaimed  the  Messi- 
anic kingdom  ;  that  at  last  he  succumbed  to  the  hatred 
and  envy  of  the  pharisaic  factionf  and  died  upon  the 
Cross — such,  according  to  Strauss,  is  the  sum  total  of 
facts,  which  the  ideas  and  aspirations  of  early  Christen- 
dom enveloped  in  a  tissue  of  significant  legends  and 
devout  imaginings.  Of  the  discourses  of  our  Lord,  a 
small  solid  kernel,  as  he  thinks,  can  be  discerned  with 
certainty.  Such,  for  instance,  is  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount.  The  sayings  of  Jesus,  according  to  him,  were 
so  pregnant  and  forcible,  had  so  strong  a  hold  upon 
men's  minds  in  their  condensed  gnomic  form,  that  they 
were  preserved  in  great  part  even  in  the  flood  of  oral 
tradition.  Even  this  seems,  upon  second  thoughts,  too 
much  for  him  to  admit.  AVrenchcd  from  their  natural 
connection,  dislodged  from  their  original  site,  they  re- 
main like  boulders,  objects  of  vague  wonder  or  super- 

*  Schwartz.     See  also  Soberer,  Revue  dcs  Deux  Mondes. 

+  Even  this  is  a  distortion  of  history.  Caiuphas  and  his  part^'  were  Sad- 
ducces;  a  fact  which  Liter  writers  of  the  Tubingen  school  have  louud  impos- 
sible to  reconcile  witU  their  theory  of  the  origin  of  the  Gospels. 


Essay  IV.]  IDEOLOGY  AND  SUBSCEirTION.  183 

stitious  legends,  until  their  true  origin  and  meaning 
are  ascertained  by  pliilosopliic  ingenuity  and  researcli. 

22.  And  yet  Strauss  professes,  and  may  be  assumed 
actually  to  believe,  that  he  retains  the  essential  truths 
of  Christianity.  The  last  portion  of  his  book,  which 
he  certainly  regarded  as  the  most  important,  is  intended 
to  draw  out  the  eternal  ideas  wdiich  underlie  this 
strange  tissue  of  legend  and  myth.  The  supernatural 
nativity  of  Christ,  llis  miracles.  His  resurrection  and 
ascension,  remain  ideal  truths — utterly  separated  as 
they  are  from  objective  facts.  Christ,  indeed,  in  His 
concrete  personality,  disappears  from  the  system  of 
the  great  teacher  of  Ideology.  Ko  individual  does  or 
can  adequately  represent,  much  less  embody,  absolute 
realities.  But  the  Church  was  guided  by  a  true  in- 
stinct when,  ill  the  Person  of  Jesus,  she  found  an  ex- 
pression of  those  realities.  In  Him  was  manifested 
more  perfectly  than  in  any  individual  that  which  is 
the  ultimate  and  substantial  principle  of  all  religion, 
the  unity  of  God  and  man.  It  is  actually  startling  to 
find  how  the  versatile  and  imaginative  intellect  of 
Strauss*  can  discern  the  blessedness  and  sublimity, 
the  encouragement  and  consolation  of  the  thoughts 
wdiich  the  early  Church  derived  from  the  orthodox 
view  of  Christ.  Standing  from  without,  ho  sees  far 
more  clearly  than  many  who  profess  to  believe  the 
Gospel,  the  internal  coherence  of  its  highest  doctrines. 
Only,  as  Strauss  teaches,  the  true  meaning  of  those 
doctrines  remained  to  be  discovered  in  the  light  of  the 
philosophy  of  the  Absolute.f  That  alone  supplies  the 
key  to  the  whole  system  of  Christology.  Instead  of 
an  individual  we  have  an  idea.  In  an  individual  the 
properties  and  functions  which  the  Church  attributes 
to  Christ  contradict  themselves  :  in  the  idea  of  the  race 
they  perfectly  agree.  Humanity  is  the  union  of  the 
two  natures — God  become  man ;  it  is  tlie  worker  of 
miracles,  the  sinless  existence ;  for  sin  belongs  to  the 
individual,  not  to  the  race.     It  is  Humanity  that  dies, 


*  See  the  concluding  Dissertation,  §  145. 

t  Concluding  Dissertation,  §  151,  p.  437,  vol.  iii.  English  tri 


translation. 


234  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  IV. 

rises,  ascends  into  Heaven.  By  faith  in  this  Christ, 
that  is,  in  his  own  hnman  nature,  man  is  justified  be- 
fore God. 

23.  Is  this  the  hast  word  of  the  system  ?  It  seems 
to  go  far  enough.  Yet  Strauss  had  more  to  say.  In 
a  later  work,'^"  he  boklly  clears  away  all  remaining 
prejudices.  Tli«  world  is  not  merely  one  with  God — 
an  ever  changing,  ever  progressing  manifestation  of  the 
Divine,  but  God  has  Himself  no  personality,  no  con- 
scious Being.  Man  had  taken  the  throne  of  Christ. 
He  seats  himself  ultimately  in  the  throne  of  the  Abso- 
lute, which  first  attains  to  consciousness,  to  personal 
existence,  in  humanity.f  The  individual  is  nothing — 
a  mere  phenomenal  and  transitional  evolution  ;  the  abso- 
lute is  nothing — a  mere  potentiality  never  realized  or 
realizable.  Empty  abstraction  swallows  up  all  idea  and 
fact,  the  Divine  and  human,  in  one  universal  void. 

24.  Such  is  Ideology  in  the  mind  of  its  ablest,  its 
most  honest  and  consistent  exponent.  The  storm  pro- 
duced by  such  a  work  may  be  conceived.  All  the 
leaders  of  German  thought  were  in  a  tumult  of  excite- 
ment; the  first  object  of  those,  between  whose  systems 
and  that  of  Strauss  there  appeared  to  be  a  logical  con- 
nection, was  to  shake  oflf  the  responsibility.  Schleier- 
macher's  friends  first  rushed  to  the  rescue,  and  pointed 
out  the  absolute  antagonism  between  the  genial  and 
loving  spirit  of  their  chief,  and  the  reckless  audacity, 
the  irreverence,  and  bitterness  of  the  intruder.  Hege- 
lians were,  of  course,  vehement  in  disavowing  the  prin- 
ciples and  the  consequences.  Yet,  as  we  have  seen, 
Strauss  did  but  use  the  weapons  which  had  been  forged 
for  him.  He  scarcely  went  farther  than  De  Wette,  on 
the  one  hand,  in  historical  scepticism,  or  difiered  from 
him  only  in  the  consistency  and  completeness  of  his 
application  of  the  same  critical  principles.  Strauss 
might  even  claim  Schleiermacher's  own  authority  for 

*  The '  Dogmatik,'  or '  Die  Christlichc  Glaubenslchro,'  published  1840,1841. 

+  "  Gott  is  uicht  Person,  Er  wird  es  in  der  unendlichen  lieihe  der  nicn- 
schlichen  Subjecte."  See  Schwartz,  p.  218 ;  and  Strauss,  Glaubenslehre, 
pp.  502-524. 


Essay  lY.]  IDEOLOGY  AND  SUBSCEirTIOiT.  jg^ 

tlie  denial  of  the  possibility  of  miracles,  althoiigli,  by  a 
glorious  inconsistency,  that  great  man  accept'ed  as  a 
Christian  truth  what  he  could  find  no  place  for  in  his 
philosophical  system.  On  the  other  hand,  so  far  as  his 
application  of  tlie  Hegelian  theory  was  concerned, 
daringly  blasphemous  as  he  may  seem,  he  was  soon 
outstripped  by  even  more  reckless  infidels.  In  fact, 
other  symptoms  soon  removed  all  doubt  as  to  the  ten- 
dency of  Hegelian  forms  of  thought.  Frederic  Richter, 
a  bookseller  of  Breslau,  had  already  published  in  1833 
— two  years  before  the  appearance  of  Strauss's  'Life 
of  Jesus ' — a  work  in  which  he  proclaimed  a  new  Gos- 
pel, as^  he  styled  it,  that  of  eternal  death."^  Ilis  argu- 
ment, in  the  opinion  of  very  competent  judges,  was  a 
legitimate  deduction  from  Hegel's  theory  of  individ- 
uality, though  -the  book  and  the  author  were  over- 
whelmed in  a  general  outburst  of  indignation.  Later 
and  more  consistent  professors  of  that  school  did  not 
hesitate  to  call  the  condemnation  of  Richter,  coming  as 
it  did  from  Hegelians,  a  literary  assassination.  Again, 
one  of  the  most  thoroughgoing  adherents  of  Hegel,  Bruno 
Bauer,  a  writer  who  had  made  himself  conspicuous  by 
his  heady  arrogance  in  the  cause  of  orthodoxy,  now 
turning  round  with  a  sudden  revulsion,  poured  forth  a 
stream  of  w^ritings,  in  which  the  facts  and  doctrines  of 
Christianity  were  treated  with  a  blasphemous  insolence 
scarcely  paralleled  in  modern  days.  Tlie  writings  of 
Bauer  and  Richter,  however,  were  easily  disavowed; 
even  the  opponents  of  Hegel  hesitated  to  make  the 
calm  conservative  philosopher  res2:ionsible  for  such 
results. 

25.  Two  years  after  the  appearance  of  Strauss's  work 
another  application  of  Hegel's  principles  was  develop- 
ed, which,  though  far  less  startling  and  urged  in  a  far 
differeiit  spirit,  produced  a  deeper  and  more  durable 
sensation  on  the  Continent.     R.  Rothe,f  sub-director  of 

*  Die  Lehre  von  den  Ictzten  Dingcn.  Gieseler  says  iliat  many  Hegelians 
blarned  Richter  not  for  the  doctrine,  but  for  its  publication,  '■'■J'or  discovering 
a  seci'tt  of  the  school."     '  Kirchcngeschichte  der  u.  Z.,'  p.  245. 

t  Now  Professor  at  Heidelberg.  His  book  is  eutitled  *  Die  Anfange  der 
Christlicbcn  Kircbe,  uud  ibrcr  Verfassung.' 


IQQ  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  IV. 

the  theological  college  at  Wittenberg,  published,  iii 
1837,  his  treatise  on  the  origin  and  constitution  of 
the  Christian  Church.  Rothe  is  in  all  respects  a  most 
remarkable  man ;  in  originality  and  independence  of 
thought  he  stands  almost  alone  among  German  theolo- 
gians ;  his  personal  piety  and  hearty  acceptance  of  the 
livinir  truths  of  religion  are  undoubted.''^  Few  of  our 
own  "later  writers  have  gone  so  far — none  have  gone 
farther,  in  defending,  both  by  d  priori  arguments 
and  historical  evidence,  the  apostolical  origin  of  Episco- 
pacy, the  unity  and  authority  of  the  primitive  Church. 
It  seemed  as  though  the  conservation  of  Hegel  had 
found  a  perfect  exponent.  Yet,  strange  as  it  may 
appear,  the  conclusion  at  which  he  arrives,  following 
out,  as  the  keenest  critics  f  admit,  the  principles  of  his 
master,  is  that  the  Christian  Church  is  but  a  temporary 
institution  destined  to  be  absorbed  by  the  State ;  X  ii^ 
which,  like  all  true  Hegelians,  §  he  sees  no  mere 
system  of  mutual  defence,  or  institution  in  which  the 
energies  of  individuals  may  be  freely  developed,  but 
the  highest  product  of  reason,  the  supreme  development 
of  humanity, — in  a  word,  the  moral  world  realized 
and  organized.  The  views  of  Eothe  are  altogether  too 
subtle,  and  indeed  too  elevated,  to  reach  the  general 
mind  in  the  form  which  he  gave  them :  his  State  is  an 
ideal  one ;  his  hope  of  the  realization  of  his  theory 
depends  upon  his  belief  in  a  future  personal  manifesta- 
tion of  the  Saviour;  but  the  necessary  results  of  his 
reasoning  were  clearly  discerned  by  thinking  men,  and 
practical  inferences  were  readily  drawn.  He  recog- 
nizes himself  with  calm  satisfaction  what  he  believes 
to  be  early  and  progressive  symptoms  of  decline  and 
disintegration  in  the  Church,  the  steady  progress  of 

*  A  very  strong  tcstimoiir  is  borne  to  his  piety  by  Rudolf  Stier  in  the  in- 
troduction'to  his  new  edition  of  the  '  Redeu  der  Apostel,'  ISGl,  p.  viii.  He 
says  of  him — "  Dessen  innerstes  Glaubcnsleben  ich  wohl  kenne.  In  some 
points  Rothe  shows  a  strong  tendency  to  Romanism,  and  speaks  of  Miihler's 
'  SymboHk'  in  terms  of  ahnost  unqualified  eulogy. 

t  For  instance,  E.  Scherer  in  the  '  Revue  des  Deux  blondes,'  p.  849,  Feb. 
ISGl ;  and  Schwartz,  *  Zur  Geschichte  der  nouesten  Thcologie.' 

X  "  Der  vollendete  Staat  schliesst  die  Kirche  schleehthiu  aus." — 'Anfange,' 
p.  47. 

§  See  his  note,  p.  13,  where  he  collects  Hegel's  definitions  of  the  State. 


Essay  IV.]  IDEOLOGY  AND  SUBSCEIPTION.  jgY 

cncroaclimeiits  on  the  part  of  the  State;  and,  in  con- 
nection with  outward  changes,  an  internal  modilication 
of  opinions,  feelings,  and  principles,  tending  towards 
a  final  identification  of  the  secular  and  religious,  the 
natural  and  the  Divine.  He  does  not  hesitate  to  as- 
sert that  the  religious  life  itself  must  find  its  true  and 
satisfactory  realization,  not  in  the  Church  but  in  the 
State.*  Though  resting  on  far  other  grounds,  there  is 
a  remarkable  resemblance  between  his  theory  as  w^ell 
as  the  arguments  by  which  it  is  maintained,  and  that 
of  our  own  Arnold. f  The  supremacy  of  the  State  in 
all  matters,  botli  of  discipline  and  doctrine,  is  the 
rightful  and  legitimate  development  of  Christianity  ; 
it  decides  what  shall  be  taught,  and  how  it  shall  be 
taught ;  and  in  the  mean  time  it  treats,  and  has  a  right 
to  treat,  the  national  Church,  as  no  less  properly  an 
organ  of  the  national  lile  than  a  magistracy  or  a  legis- 
lative estate. 

26.  The  philosophy  of  ideology,  thus  consistently 
carried  out  by  writers  of  very  different  feelings  and 
principles,  leaves  man  without  a  church,  without  a 
Saviour,  without  a  living  soul.  There  remained,  how- 
ever, still  a  sort  of  profession  of  religion,  a  religion  of 
vague,  dreary  abstractions,  but  still,  such  as  it  was,  an 
element  in  which  philosophers  might  find  some  ma- 
terials for  the  religious  sentiment,  while  the  common 
herd  might  be  guided  by  the  retention  of  the  old  doc- 
trinal forms.  "That  delusion  was  soon  dissipated. 
Feuerbach  took  up  the  argument  where  Strauss  left  it, 

*  p.  51. 

t  Dr.  Arnold,  of  course,  did  not  derive  his  opinions  directly  from  Rothe, 
whose  work  he  read  in  1838.  In  a  letter  written  that  year  to  Chevalier  Bun- 
sen,  he  expresses  his  entire  agreement  with  Rothe  in  his  theory  as  to  the 
identity  of  Church  and  State ;  but,  as  might  be  expected,  rejects  as  entirely 
his  conclusions  touching  the  apostolical  origin  of  episcopacy.  See  '  Life,' 
&c.,  ii.  p.  105.  It  will  be  remembered  that  the  Chevalier  Biinsen,  with  whom 
Arnold  says  distinctly  that  he  agrees  more  thoroughly  than  any  of  his  friends, 
was  deeply  imbued  with  Hegel's  principles,  and  more  especially  with  their 
application  to  the  relations  between  the  Church  and  the  State.  There  can 
be  little  doubt  that  he  gave  the  first  impulse  to  Arnold's  mind  upon  this  sub- 
ject, or  at  least  confirmed  it  in  the  direction  which  it  took  after  the  reaction 
from  what  he  somewhere  calls  his  Oxford  Toryism.  The  numerous  and  pe- 
culiar coincidences  between  Arnold  and  his  German  prototypes  can  other- 
wise scarcely  be  accounted  for.     He  learned  German  somewhat  late  in  life. 


138  ^^'^^  "^O  FAITH.  [Essay  IV. 

and  drew  from  it  tlic  inevitable  conclusion,  tliat  man 
himself  is  the  only  proper  object  for  the  reverence  and 
the  worship  which  had  hitherto  been  directed  to  the 
idea  of  a  God.  Tlieology  was  thus  converted  to  an- 
thropology. Instead  of  loving  God,  men  are  to  love 
one  another.  Sacraments  will  disappear,  but  then  the 
cucharist  will  be  found  in  wholesome  meals ;  baptism, 
in  the  healthy  use  of  cold  baths !  ISlatural  science  will 
take  the  place  of  religious,  moral,  and  metaphysical 
speculation.  Atheism  thus  stood  out  in  its  bareness 
and  barrenness — yet  not  even  then  in  its  utter  hatefal- 
ness.  It  remained  for  a  numerous  school  of  philo- 
sophical radicals  to  get  rid  of  the  last  vestiges  of 
superstition.  Feuerbach  recognized  the  virtues  of  un- 
selfishness, courage,  truth  ;  ^^  he  was  an  admirer  of  the 
higher  developments  of  genius,  in  science,  literature, 
and  art.  He  speaks  of  humanity  as  a  real  being.  A 
whole  host  of  writers  soon  sprang  up  who  rejected  all 
such  delusions  with  utter  contempt ;  they  saw  clearly 
that  they  had  no  meaning  disjoined  from  the  religious 
element,  and  heaped  upon  himself  the  contumelious 
epithets  which  he  had  unsparingly  applied  to  his  pre- 
decessors. The  dogmas  of  socialism  and  communism 
were  preached  with  the  wildest  fanaticism  ;  f  poets, 
politicians,  socialists,  and  natural  philosoj^hers  came 
forward  to  demand  the  extirpation  of  all  faith,  to  de- 
nounce the  belief  in  the  invisible  as  the  root  of  all 
human  weakness  and  misery,  to  proclaim  the  sacred 
law  of  egotism — the  religion  of  the  flesh ;  and  for  a 
time  they  seemed  to  have  succeeded.  They  appealed  to 
man's  strongest  passions ;  they  appealed  also  to  some 
deep  principles.     It  was  felt  that  the  religion  preached 

*  This  is  too  favourable  a  view.  In  his  poems,  which,  like  the  '  Thalia'  of 
Arius,  are  intended  to  popularize  his  tenets,  his  cynicism  is  revoltinc.  In 
his  axioms  he  lays  down  the  principle — Thy  lirst  dut}'  is  to  do  good  to  thy- 
self. 

f  See  Schwartz,  *  Zur  Geschichte  dcr  neucsten  Theologie,'  pp.  227,  240,  242. 
It  must  be  noted  that  Schwartz  and  Scherer  (who  takes  precisely  the  same 
view — see  'Revue  des  Deux  Mondes,'  Feb.  l^^Gl,  p.  851)  are  ultra  liberals. 
Schwartz  names  Ilerwegh,  Huge,  Marr,  Voght,  &c.,  as  leaders  in  this  new 
crusade.  Gasjjard  Schmidt,  better  known  by  the  assumed  name  of  Stirner, 
was,  perhaps,  the  most  influential  writer.  Gicseler,  1.  c,  pp.  SO  and  275, 
may  be  consulted. 


Essay  IV.]  IDEOLOGY  AND  SUE3CKIPTI0N.  jgg 

by  tlie  professors  of  all  schools  tainted  by  rationalism 
or  by  ideology  was  a  farce,  a  delusion,  a  fraud ;  the 
materialists  carried  the  day,  took  the  lead  in  the  rev- 
olutionary movement  of  1848,  and  suddenly,  to  their 
own  amazement,  found  themselves  triumphant  amidst 
the  Tuins  of  Church  and  State. 

27.  A  long  and  powerful  reaction  followed.  Utterly 
worn  out,  unmasked,  and  confounded,  ideology,  togeth- 
er with  the  metaphysical  speculations  with  which  it 
was  connected,  sank  into  obscurity  and  contem])t.  The 
very  last  thing  to  be  expected  was  that  it  should  have 
been  transplanted  into  a  soil  of  all  apparently  the  most 
uncongenial — that  it  should  be  ofiered  to  Englishmen 
as  a  useful  help  in  the  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures. 
A  very  brief  summary  of  points  distinctly  advanced,  or 
undeniably  suggested,  by  some  of  the  latest  advocates 
of  the  system  in  England  will  show  the  fundamental 
identity  of  principles  between  them  and  the  German 
ideologists  ;  although  wo  gladly  admit  that,  whether 
withheld  by  reverence,  or  by  fear  of  offending  men  of 
all  shades  of  religious  opinion,  not  to  speak  of  legal 
penalties  and  disqualifications,  few  among  us  have  ven- 
tured to  present  the  most  ofiensive  insinuations  ;  none 
have  dared  to  apply  the  principles  to  the  whole  sub- 
stance of  the  Scriptural  narrative. 

28.  The  doctrine  of  p.ersonal  annihilation,  of  the 
absorption  of  the  individual  consciousness  in  the  infi- 
nite Spirit — a  doctrine,  be  it  noted,  which  is  distinctly 
proclaimed  among  ourselves  by  Freethinkers,  and  di- 
rectly based  upon  Pantheism,  or  a  spurious  Theism — is 
not  of  course  preached,  nor  is  it  likely  to  be  preached, 
by  any  one  who  cares  to  obtain  or  retain  a  hold  upon 
the  attention  of  English  Christians  ;  but  it  finds  an  echo, 
a  partial  expression,  what  sounds  like  a  preparation. 
Divested  of  what  is  most  repulsive  in  form,  the  jirinci- 
ple  is  insinuated,  the  way  paved  for  its  reception.  Every 
attempt  to  get  rid  of  the  idea  of  individual  responsibili- 
ty, to  exempt  any  considerable  portion  of  mankind  from 
the  universal  law  of  retribution,  is  a  step,  and  a  very 
decided  step,  towards  the  denial  of  the  continuity  of 


190  -^1^3  TO  FAIXn.  [Essay  IV. 

personal  consciousness.  A  nearer  approximation  to  the 
scepticism  of  the  Ideologists  could  perliaps  hardly  be 
made  than  that  which  we  iind  in  the  suggestion,  that, 
after  some  possible  state  of  new  probation  for  rudimen- 
tary spirits,  for  germinal  souls — after  the  completion  of 
the  sublunary  office  of  the  Christian  Church — all,  both 
small  and  great,  may  find  a  refuge  in  the  bosom  of  the 
universal  Parent  to  repose,  or  to  be  cpiickened  into 
higher  life.* 

29.  Wq  have  seen  how  nearly  the  theories  of  the 
Church  coincide.  As  a  function  of  the  State,  destined 
to  be  absorbed  (and  if  such  its  destiny,  surely  the  sooner 
the  better)  in  that  institution,  it  ought,  of  course,  to 
concern  itself  exclusively  wdth  the  ethical  development 
of  its  members. t  Rothe,  indeed,  looked  for  such  ab- 
sorption only  when  the  State  should  be  thoroughly 
penetrated  w^itli  Christian  doctrine,  transformed  and 
glorified  by  Christian  principles — when  its  ideal  should 
be  realized  imder  the  government  of  its  head.  Taking 
lower,  more  matter  of  fact  and  practical  grounds — free, 
as  it  would  almost  seem,  from  the  religious  preposses- 
sions which  biassed  the  German  thinker,  English  writ- 
ers are  found  to  advocate  the  immediate  completion 
of  the  process.  "  S2:)eculative  doctrines" — that  is,  all 
dogmatic  teaching — "should  be  left  to  philosophical 
schools.  "  "The  ministry  of  the  Church  is  to  be  regarded 
simply  as  a  function  of  the  national  life."  Divested  of 
its  special  doctrines,  its  creeds,  and  articles,  and  all 
peculiar  manifestations  of  a  divine  life,  the  Church 
could  of  course  be  little  or  nothing  more  than  an  instru- 
ment for  developing  the  moral  character  of  the  nation. :j: 
AVe  are  distinctly  told  concerning  "  the  doctrines  of  an 
isolated  salvation,  the  reward,  the  grace  bestowed  on 

*  See  E,  and  R.,  p.  20r. ;  and  compare  Jowcit  on  Romans,  vol.  ii.  p.  480. 

t  There  is  a  radical  difrerencc  between  this  theory  and  that  of  our  Re- 
formers, as  stated  by  Hooker.  The  latter  proceeded  on  the  assumption  that 
tlie  State  accepts  the  doctrines  taught  by  the  Church.  *'  IIow  should  the 
Church  remain  by  personal  subsistence  divided  from  the  Commonweal, 
when  the  whole  Commonweal  doth  believe?  "  "  The  truth  is  that  the  Church 
and  the  Commonweal  arc  names  which  import  things  really  dilfcrcnt ;  but 
those  things  are  accidents,  and  such  accidents  as  may,  and"  always  should, 
lovinglv  dwell  toerether  in  one  subject." — 'Ecclesiastical  Polity,'  Book  viii. 

X  E'.  and  R.,  p.  I'JG. 


Essay  IV.]  IDEOLOGY  AND  SUB3CKIPTI0N.  jgj 

one's  own  labours,  tlie  undistniLed  repose,  the  crown 
of  glory,  in  which  so  many  have  no  share,  the  finality 
of  the  sentence  on  both  sides — that  reflections  on  such 
expectations  as  these  make  stubborn  martyrs,  or  sour 
professors,  but  not  good  citizensy  *  If  so,  these  doc- 
trines, which,  invidiously  as  they  are  here  stated,  are, 
rightly  understood,  the  very  life  of  Christianity,  must 
be  discountenanced  ;  even  if  for  a  time  toleratecl  of  the 
State,  they  must  be  discarded  altogether,  when  it  is 
once  fully  awakened  to  the  consciousness  of  its  true 
relations  to  the  Church. 

30.  Still  clearer,  less  capable  of  being  ex2)lained 
away  or  denied,  is  the  agreement  of  the  English  ideolo- 
gists w^itli  the  fundamental  principles  of  their  German 
teachers.  Ideology  proceeds  from  the  a  priori  assump- 
tion that  all  miraculous  interventions  are  impossible, 
since  the  Divine,  whether  conscious  or  unconscious, 
personal  or  impersonal,  does  not  and  cannot,  without 
self-contradiction,  violate  its  own  laws.  All  the  school 
in  England  more  or  less  distinctly  concur  in  the  elimi- 
nation of  the  supernatural  element  from  Scripture.  The 
least  advanced  represent  it  as  a  serious  hindrance  to 
the  reception  of  Christian  truth  by  men  of  cultivated 
intelligence.  The  German  master  adopted  and  gave  a 
new  and  keener  point  to  all  detailed  objections  to  nar- 
ratives involving  that  element:  the  same  conrse  is 
pursued  in  numerous  passages  of  the  "  Essays  and 
Review^s."  f 

With  regard  to  myths,  the  special  characteristic  of 
ideology,  one  writer  at  least  cannot  be  open  to  Strauss's 
charge  of  inconsistency.  He  has  not  perely  entered 
into  the  fields  of  Scriptural  history  through  the  portal 
of  the  myth  and  passed  out  again  leaving  the  main 
facts  untouched.  :j:  The  incarnation  of  our  Lord,  His 
descent  from  David,  the  circumstances  of  His  nativity. 
His  temptation,  transfiguration,  His  most  remarkable 
miracles,  including  those  attested  by  all  the  Evangelists, 

*  ITcre  wo  seem  to  hear  Rotho,  p.  54. 

t  E.  and  R.,  pp.  171t,  180.    Sec  Archdeacon  Sinclair's  Charge,  ISGl. 

X  E.  and  R.,  p.  202. 


■j^g2  ^I^S  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  IV. 

— nearly  all,  if  not  all,  the  grounds  for  an  "  historical 
faith"  are  referred  substantially  to  "  an  ideal  origin." 
As  for  the  Old  Testament,  we  are  told  that  "  previous 
to  the  time  of  the  divided  kingdom,  Jewish  history 
contains  little  that  is  thoroughlj^  reliable."  Its  miracu- 
lous events  may  be  taken  as  parable,  poetry,  legend, 
or  allegory — that  is,  simply  as  myths.  The  German 
saw  plainly  enough  that,  in  order  to  find  time  and  place 
for  the  development  of  myths,  the  authenticity  and 
genuineness  of  the  historical  records  must  be  denied, 
lie  scarcely  went  farther  than  a  writer  who  speaks 
coolly  of  "  links  deficient  in  the  traditional  records  of 
events  "  which  are  related  by  St.  Matthew  and  all  the 
Ev^angelists. 

A  crucial  test  of  a  man's  feelings  towards  the  Per- 
son of  Christ  Himself  is  undoubtedly  supplied  by  his 
reception  or  denial  of  the  Gospel  of  St.  John.  The 
early  rationalists  rejected  it  on  the  ground  that  it  is 
inconsistent  with  the  simpler,  more  accurate  represen- 
tations of  Christ  in  the  other  Gospels.  The  modern 
neologlans  hold  that  it  is  the  product  of  the  higher 
development  of  the  Christian  consciousness  in  the  post- 
Apostolic  age.  According  to  the  school  of  pantheistic 
rationalism,  aptly  and  truly  designated  the  modern 
gnosticism,  the  representation  of  the  Saviour  in  that 
Gospel  is  too  true,  that  is,  too  perfect  an  embodiment 
of  tlic  ideal,  to  be  historical.  But  of  all  hypotheses, 
the  most  offensive,  the  least  supported  by  any  shadow 
of  evidence,  is  that  which  connects  the  origin  of  the 
Gospel  with  the  gnostic  heresy,"^'  and  brings  down  its 
date  to  the  year  l4o.  That  hypothesis  is  noticed  with- 
out an  expression  of  indignation  by  one  writer,  who  in 
his  own  name  expressly  asserts  that  there  is  no  proof 
that  St.  John  gives  his  voucher  as  an  eye  and  ear  wit- 
ness of  all  that  is  related  in  his  Gospel.  Strauss  de- 
manded no  more  than  this.  Here  is  a  irov  arco  for  the 
subversion   of  all  positive  evidence  of  historical  Chris- 

*  Thus  IJilgenfi'ld.  8cc  a  brief  summary  of  opinions  in  Lange's  Bibel- 
werk,  iv.  p.  idU,"uu  cxccllcut  work,  \Yhicb  will  meet  the  requirements  of  many 
HtudenLs. 


Essay  IV.]  IDEOLOGY  AND  SUBSCKIPTION.  5^93 

tianity.  The  injtliical  process  has  free  play  ;  and  it  is 
only  a  question  of  time,  of  discretion  in  meddling  with 
stubborn  prejudices,  how  soon  and  how  far  the  objective 
facts  of  an  external  positive  revelation  may  be  rejected, 
how  the  doctrines  themselves  may  be  remoulded,  under 
the  supreme  and  ultimate  authority  of  the  natural  con- 
science, into  accordance  with  the  requirements  of  an 
enliglitened  age. 

31.  The  question  of  course  arises — how  is  it  pos- 
sible that  men  of  honour  holding  such  opinions  can  re- 
tain, or  endure,  their  position  as  ministers  and  teachers 
of  a  Church,  which,  liberal  as  it  undoubtedly  is  in 
dealing  with  all  questions  about  which  ])elievers  in  a 
positive  revelation  may  conscientiously  differ,  has  no 
less  certainly  pronounced  a  clear  and  decisive  sentence 
upon  each  and  all  the  points  controverted  or  denied  by 
Ideologists  ?  Tliat  the  difficulty  is  felt  is  sufficiently 
obvious.  The  principal  object  of  the  only  treatise  in 
which  the  leading  principles  of  this  form  of  neology 
have  been  distinctly  commended  by  a  minister  of  the 
Church  of  England,  is  to  justify  the  conduct  of  him- 
self and  those  who  maintain  the  same  views.  In  this 
part  of  his  undertaking  he  has  been  supplied  with 
weapons  from  the  same  foreign  armoury.  In  the  writ- 
ings of  all  schools  of  rationalism  and  neology,  a  promi- 
nent place  is  assigned  to  the  vindication  of  absolute 
liberty  of  scepticarspeculation,  not  merely  for  students, 
but  for  professors  of  theology.  We  need  not,  however, 
trace  the  connection."^^  Th^t  is  of  little  moment.  The 
arguments  in  this  case  have  at  least  the  merit  of  being 
intelligible  and  practical.  "Whether  the  Church  has  at 
present,  and  has  had  from  the  beginning,  safeguards 
to  preserve  her  doctrines  from  corruption — whether  she 
has  a  right,  and  has  exercised  the  right,  to  exact  from 
all  her  ministers  a  pledge  that  so  long  as  they  retain 
her  commission  they  will  deliver  those  doctrines   in 

*  The  history  of  the  struggle  of  Rationalists,  more  especially  the  Licht- 
freunde,  partisaiis  or  lollowers  of  Strauss,  to  get  rid  of  all  doctrinal  tests,  the 
Creeds  included,  is  given  by  Gieselci",  who,  though  dillering  from  them  in 
important  points,  sympathizes  with  them  to  some  extent  in  that  desire.  See 
*  Kirchengeschichte  d.  n.  Z.,'  pp.  250  and  203. 
9 


194  -^I^S  TO  FAITH.  [EssATlV. 

their  integrity  to  the  people — wliether  the  act  of  sub- 
scription by  which  the  ministers  give  such  pledge 
involves  a  moral,  or  a  mere  legal  obligation — such 
questions  stand  upon  independent  grounds,  and  may  be 
discussed  without  any  reference  to  the  sources  from 
which  the  arguments  we  have  to  consider  may,  or  may 
not,  be  derived. 

32.  In  this  controversy  the  first  point  must  needs  be 
to  ascertain  the  practice  of  the  Apostles  as  recorded  or 
intimated  in  the  Kew  Testament,  and  in  the  next  place 
the  practice  of  the  Church  in  various  periods  of  its  de- 
velopment ;  the  most  important,  in  a  general  point  of 
view,  being  that  critical  epoch  which  terminated  the 
first  struggle  with  heathenism.  Scarcely  secondary  is 
the  position  taken  by  our  own  Church,  when  it  thor- 
oughly investigated  all  points  of  principle  and  organi- 
zation at  the  tim.e  of  the  Eeformation — a  position 
retained  without  any  substantial  modification  at  the 
present  day. 

33.  With  regard  to  the  first  point,  the  ingenuity 
and  disingenuousness  of  those  who  deny  the  propriety 
of  doctrinal  limitations  are  equally  conspicuous.  The 
subject  is  introduced,  so  to  speak,  casually,  and  dis- 
2:)0sed  of  with  little  intimation  of  its  surpassing  impor- 
tance. If  the  Apostles*  enforced  a  rule  of  fiiith,  and 
made  the  teaching  of  sound  doctrine  an  absolute  and 
universal  condition  of  holding  oflice  in  the  Church,  the 
principle  is  of  com'se  decided,  whatever  difficulty  may 
be  felt  at  any  time  about  its  practical  application. 
Kow,  the  first  impression  made  upon  every  thoughtful 
reader  of  the  Xcw  Testament  is  undoubtedly,  that  tlie 
whole  system  of  Christian  morals,  most  especially  as 
concerns  those  characteristic  peculiarities  which  dis- 
tinguish the  Christian  from  the  heathen  moralist,  is  not 
merely  interwoven  with  the  external  facts  and  positive 
doctrines  of  Christianity,  but  is  altogether  based  upon 
them,  and  derives  from  them  its  sanctions,  its  power,  its 
life.  The  manifestation  of  the  Divine  life  in  man  is  a 
^'eflexion  and  efflux  from  the  manifestation  of  God  in 

*  Sec,  e.  g.,  2  Timothy  i.  13,  14;  ii.  2,    ii.  10,  14. 


Essay  IV.]  IDEOLOGY  AND   SUC3CFJPTI0N.  -^q^ 

Christ,  The  understanding  and  heart,  the  spiritual 
and  the  moral  nature  of  man,  are  equally  under  the 
dominion  and  control  of  truths,  which  man  has  indeed 
a  natural  and  inherent  capacity  for  apprehending  when 
set  before  him,  but  which,  in  the  actual  state  of  his 
faculties,  he  is  certainly  unable  to  discover.  Those 
truths  are  given  in  revelation  in  the  two-fold  form  of 
facts  and  doctrines,  equally  positive,  equally  indispen- 
sable to  the  development  of  the  spiritual  man.  The 
denial  or  perversion  of  either  excludes  a  man  from  the 
benefits  of  the  revelation — a  result  which  follows  of 
necessity  from  the  very  notion  of  a  revelation,  for  why 
should  truth  be  revealed  but  to  be  accepted  ?  We  are 
not  at  present  concerned  with  the  question  how  far 
such  result  is  reconcileable  with  tlie  Divine  attributes, 
or  we  might  observe  that  the  denial  of  what  God  has 
revealed  must  needs  involve  some  penalty  in  beings 
responsible  for  the  use  of  their  faculties  ;  nor  do  we 
touch  the  case  of  those  to  whom  the  revelation  has  not 
been  given ;  Charity  feels  no  need  of  speculations  con- 
cerning those  whom  she  leaves  in  faith  and  hope  to  the 
mercy  of  their  Maker.  We  are  not  confining  the 
effects  of  the  atonement,  wliicli  may,  and  doubtless  do, 
extend  far  beyond  the  sphere  of  our  contemplation  ; 
but  simply  indicate  the  limits  within  which  its  full 
effects  are  experienced — limits  undoubtedly  coexten- 
sive with'  its  reception  by  the  intellect  and  heart. 
Christ  made  confession  of  faith  in  Himself,  and  in  the 
truths  which  He  proclaimed,  the  condition  of  salva- 
tion. The  Apostles,  guided  by  His  Spirit,  exacted  a 
declaration  of  belief  in  those  trutlis  as  a  preliminary 
condition  of  admission  to  the  Church,  full  in  every 
case  in  proportion  to  the  capacities  of  their  hearers 
and  their  opportunities  of  knowing  the  truth,  fullest 
and  most  explicit  in  the  case  of  those  whom  they  ap- 
pointed to  the  work  of  the  ministry.  If  so,  the  con- 
clusion is  obvious,  that  the  Church  would  cease  to  be  a 
Church  if  she  commissioned  any  to  teach  in  her  own 
and  in  her  Master's  name,  when  they  are  at  direct  issue 
with  herself  upon  points  which   from   the   beginning 


196  AIDS  TO  FAITn.  ["Essav  IV. 

have  been  held  by  tliosc  who  denied,  as  well  as  by 
those  who  accepted  them,  to  pertain  to  the  very  foun- 
dations of  the  faith. 

34.  That  position,  however,  clear  as  are  the  prin- 
ciples on  which  it  rests,  is  now  for  the  lirst  time  assailed  ; 
not  indeed  directly,  but  by  implication.  We  are  told 
generally,  that  whereas  the  Apostles  enjoin  the  inflic- 
tion of  tlie  last  penalty,  that  of  excommunication,  for 
moral  turpitude,  they  deal  with  speculative  questions, 
even  those  which  touch  fundamental  doctrines,  simply 
by  the  way  of  controversy.  The  case  selected  is  that 
of  the  fornicator  at  Corinth,  wdiich  is  contrasted  with 
that  of  heretics  who  denied  a  corporeal  resurrection. 
With  regard  to  the  former  there  is  no  question.  The 
proceeding  of  St.  Paul  in  that  case  is,  of  course,  of 
the  highest  importance  as  a  proof  of  the  existence  and 
enforcement  of  disciplinarian  powers  in  the  Apostles, 
and  in  the  Church,  whose  rulers  were  reproved  for  not 
having  exercised  them  without  St.  Paul's  intervention. 
It  might  be  pointed  out  that  the  offence  then  punished 
consisted  most  probably  in  the  infringement  of  a  posi- 
tive precept,  which,  thougii  recognized  by  the  moral 
instincts  of  heathendom,  was  first  distinctly  promul- 
gated by  the  Apostolic  council  at  Jerusalem  ;*  and 
w^ith  reference  to  other  controverted  matters,  that  the 
circumstances  under  which  the  sentence  was  pro- 
nounced would  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  the  powers 
deposited  in  the  Church,  and  more  esj)ecially  in  the 
Apostles  as  representatives  of  the  Head  of  the  Church, 
are  in  their  essence  independent  of  the  State.  AYith 
regard  to  the  other  point,  which  concerns  the  Apostle's 
mode  of  dealing  with  heretical  opinions  in  fundamental 
matters,  we  wdiolly  repudiate  the  inference  drawn  from 
a  partial  statement  of  his  proceeding.  It  is  said  that 
St.  Paul  does  not  call  for  the  expulsion  of  those  among 
the  Christian  converts  wdio  had  no  belief  in  a  corporeal 

*  It  is  Hooker's  opinion,  in  which  the  latest  and  some  of  the  acutcst  crit- 
ics, as  Ritschl,  'Die  Entstehung  der  altkatholischen  Kirche,'  p.  1'20,  and 
Wieselcr,  concur,  that  Tropueia,  in  Acts  xv.  20,  means  illicit  marriages.  Ritschl 
pi-ovcs  that  St.  Paul  enforced  the  decree— a  point  of  cousidcrable  impor- 
tance in  the  controversy  with  the  Tiibiugen  school. 


Essay  I Y.]  IDEOLOGY  AND  SUBSCRIPTION.  jq^ 

resurrection.  That  may  be  :  weakness  of  faitli,  errors 
in  points  of  faitli  on  the  part  of  converts^  hearers^  and 
learners,  were  dealt  with  tenderly,  by  the  way  of  con- 
troversy. The  very  objects  of  the  Christian  Church 
would  otherwise  be  defeated.  But  the  question  is, 
wliether  St.  Paul  held  that  the  opinions  ought  to  be 
tolerated  ?  Whether  they  could  be  professed  or  re- 
tained w^ithout  forfeiture  of  the  distinctive  privileges 
of  Christians  ?  What  does  he  say  of  those  who  held 
them  ?  AYliat  but  that,  if  those  opinions  were  main- 
tained, their  faith  was  vain,  they  were  yet  in  their 
sins  ;  Christ  had  died  in  vain  ?  If  such  a  declaration 
be  not  tantamount  to  excommunication,  to  cutting  off 
those  who  obstinately  persisted  in  such  errors  from 
Christian  privileges,  w^ords  have  no  meaning.  Self- 
condemned,  they  became  aliens,  relapsed  into  the  state 
of  uncou version,  by  the  very  fact  of  their  denying,  not 
indeed  a  speculative  opinion,  but  what  (as  even  ideolo- 
gists admit,  strangely  inconsistent  as  such  admission  is 
with  the  system  they  ^''  advocate)  St.  Paul  always  rep- 
resents as  the  corner  stone  of  the  Christian  belief.  Of 
course  the  Apostle  proceeds  in  the  lirst  instance  by  the 
way  of  controversy,  or,  to  speak  more  correctly,  of  de- 
monstration. Of  course  his  one  great  desire  is  to  per- 
suade, to  convince,  to  win  to  the  truth,  those  who  were 
weak  or  unsound  in  the  faith ;  to  clear  up  obscurities, 
and  to  remove  difficulties  from  their  way.  JSTor  does 
he  fail  to  show  the  inward  harmony  between  the  ordi- 
nary course  of  nature  and  the  miraculous  intervention 
of  that  Power  by  which  the  laws  that  regulate  the 
course  of  nature  were  ordained.  That,  however,  is  no 
more  than  he  does  in  the  case  of  offenders  against  the 
moral  law.  He  exhausts  all  the  resources  of  persua- 
sion, expostulation,  and  warning ;  he  appeals  to  the 
reason,  the  conscience,  the  heart,  before  he  hints  at 
any  measure  of  a  judicial  character,  even  in  the  case 
of  those  wlio  "  dehle  the  temple  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 

*  There  is  no  point  on  which  Ideologists,  even  those  who  partially  adopt 
the  system,  are  more  generally  agreed  than  the  necessity  of  explaining  away 
the  fact  of  the  Resurrection. 


193  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  IV. 

But,  as  in  this  latter  case,  when  all  such  preliminary 
endeavours  proved  to  be  inefiectual,  he  resorted  ulti- 
mately to  the  exercise  of  the  awful  powers  entrusted  to 
the  Apostles  as  governors  of  Christ's  Church,  as  asses- 
sors with  Ilini  on  the  throne  of  judgment ;  so  also, 
beyond  all  doubt,  he  was  prepared  to  act,  even  as  he 
had  acted  in  the  case  of  Elymas  at  the  very  beginning 
of  his  ministry,  in  the  case  of  all  stubborn  impugners 
of  fundamental  truths. 

In  fact,  the  expressions  which  he  uses  in  reference 
to  those  who  attacked  tenets  which  would  undoubtedly 
be  regarded  by  many  as  purely  speculative  and  dog- 
matic, sound  even  harsh,  and  would  be  indefensible  as 
they  are  painful,  did  they  not  p>roceed  from  a  principle 
of  infinite  importance  to  the  integrity  of  the  Christian 
faith.  "Iw^ould  that  they  w^ere  cut  off  that  trouble 
you;"  "Let  him  be  accursed  w^ho  preaches  to  you  an- 
other Gospel;"  these  and  similar^'  expressions  had  no 
reference  to  evil  livers,  as  such,  but  to  teachers  and 
maintainers  of  evil  doctrines,  with  which  all  corruptions 
of  our  moral  nature  are  connected,  but  wdiich  have 
their  origin  in  that  higher  element  of  our  spiritual  and 
intellectual  being,  for  the  regulation  and  conscientious 
use  of  which  our  responsibility  is  grave,  even  in  pro- 
portion to  its  excellence  and  the  incomparable  majesty 
of  the  objects  wdth  which  it  is  concerned. 

We  must  further  remark,  that  in  order  to  bring  the 
argument,  such  as  it  is,  to  bear  upon  the  question  of 
subscription  as  a  condition  of  exercising  the  functions 
of  the  Christian  ministry,  it  should  liave  been  shown 
that  St.  Paul  admitted  any  man  to  preach  publicly,  in 
the  capacity  of  an  appointed  teacher,  against  the  Res- 
urrection, or  any  other  doctrine  which  had  been  plainly 
declared,  or  that  he  and  his  fellow  Apostles  failed  to 
exercise  the  right  of  deposition,  when  admonition  and 
warning  were  found  ineffectual  to  secure  the  cause  of 
truth.  Such  is  not  the  conclusion  which  we  draw  from 
the   case    of  Ilymenreus   and    Alexander,   Avliom   the 

*  Galatians  v.  12  ;  1  Timothy  iv.  1,  2  ;  2  Timothy  iii.  8,  9  ;  Titus  i.  11,  iii. 
10.    Compare  2  Johu  10,  11 ;  2  Peter  iii.  17  ;  Acts  xx.  2S-30. 


Essay  IV.]  IDEOLOGY  AND  SUBSCEIPTION.  I99 

Apostlo  "delivered  to  Satan  (the  same  sentence  as  that 
pronounced  in  the  case  of  the  Corinthian  fornicator — 
one  which,  whatever  might  be  its  effect,  undoubtedly 
amounts  to  excommunication),  that  they  might  learn 
not  to  blaspheme ;"  nor  from  that  of  Hymen ssus  and 
Philetus,  which  is  even  more  immediately  to  the  point, 
*'  who  erred  concerning  the  truth,  saying  that  the  res- 
urrection is  already  past" — unless,  indeed,  we  presume 
that  St.  Paul  allowed  their  word  to  "eat  as  doth  a  can- 
ker," and  to  "  overthrow  the  faith "  of  his  converts, 
witliout  using  the  power  "  given  to  him  by  the  Lord  " 
for  the  protection  of  the  weak  brethren,  "for  whom 
Clirist  died." 

35.  The  practice  of  the  early  Church  is  too  clearly 
established  by  a  multitude  of  public  acts  to  be  open  to 
a  similar  course  of  argument.  The  determination  of 
the  general  body  and  tlie  recognized  representatives  of 
the  Christian  community  to  exclude  all  teaching  con- 
trary to  its  fundamental  principles,  to  guard  its  doctrinal 
deposit  by  strict,  definite,  and  unmistakable  declara- 
tions, is  the  most  prominent  fact  which  meets  every 
student  of  ecclesiastical  history,  which,  indeed,  is  re- 
cognized most  distinctly  by  those  who  feel  a  rooted 
antipathy  to  every  shade  of  wdiat  they  are  pleased  to 
call  dogmatic  intolerance.  A  different,  and  not  un- 
plausible  line  of  argument,  is  therefore  adopted.  The 
statement  is  hazarded  that  the  State,  rather  than  the 
Church,  is  responsible  for  this  exclusiveness."^"  We 
are  told  f  that,  together  with  the  inauguration  of  mul- 
titudinism,  Constantino  inaugurated  a  principle  essen- 
tially at  variance  with  it — that  of  doctrinal  limitation ; 
and   we    are  informed  that    historians,    who   are   cer- 

*  It  is  a  singular  instance  of  the  influence  which  has  been  exercised,  di- 
rectly or  indirectly,  by  the  writings  of  one  of  the  most  subtle  and  ingenious 
of  modern  controversialists,  that  even  this  argument  is  derived,  though  used 
for  very  different  purposes  from  Newman's  theory  about  the  Thirty-nine 
Articles.  'See  Romanism  and  Popular  Protestantism,'  Lecture  ix.  p.  278. 
"  Their  imposition  in  its  first  origin  was  much  more  a  i)olitical  than  an  ec- 
clesiastical act;  it  was  a  provision  of  the  State  rather  than  of  the  Church, 
though  the  Church  co-operated — the  outward  form  into  which  our  religion 
was  cast  has  depended  ui  no  slight  measure  ou  the  personal  opiuious  and 
wishes  of  laymen  and  foreigners. 

t  E.  and  11.,  p.  100. 


200  ^II>S  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  IV. 

tainly  all  but  unanimous  upon  tlie  point,  are  Avrong  in 
supposing  that  the  increasing  strictness  of  definitions 
in  the  Christian  creed  must  be  attributed  to  the  rise  of 
successive  heresies.  Such  assertions  can,  of  course,  only 
be  refuted  completely  by  a  searching  inquiry  into  the 
records  of  Christian  antiquity ;  but  they  may  be  met 
by  some  decisive  facts ;  and  we  have  no  hesitation  in 
asserting  that  the  part  thus  assigned  to  the  lirst  Chris- 
tian emperor  is  diametrically  in  opposition  to  histor- 
ical facts.  So  far  from  inaugurating  the  principle 
of  doctrinal  limitation,  Constantine  from  first  to  last 
had  one  paramount  object,  and  that  was  to  get  rid  of 
doctrinal  discussions,  and  to  bring  about  a  compromise 
between  conflicting  parties — in  fact,  to  do  exactly  what 
we  are  told  would  have  been  so  desirable,  viz.,  to  en- 
force forbearance  between  the  great  antagonistic  parties, 
and  to  insist  on  the  maxim  that  neither  had  a  right  to 
limit  the  common  Christianity  to  the  exclusion  of  the 
other.  Constantine  looked  upon  the  controversy  be- 
tween Catholics  and  Arians,  as  the  representatives  of 
the  secular  authority  are  generally  disposed  to  do,  al- 
together from  without;  and  the  special  points  imder 
discussion  were  to  him  matters  of  utter  indifference.* 
The  course  which  he  had  pursued  in  the  first  instance 
was  the  very  wisest  that  could  be  devised ;  nor,  con- 
sidering the  unparalleled  importance  of  the  crisis  and 
the  results  of  his  decision,  do  we  see  how  Christians  can 
doubt  that  it  was  brought  about  by  the  great  Head  of 
the  Church.  He  called  together  from  all  quarters  of 
his  empire  the  governors  of  the  whole  Christian  com- 
munity, and  referred  the  questions  under  discussion  to 
tlicir  arbitration.  The  result  was  absolutely  decisive. 
The  Nicene  Creed  was  drawn  up  as  a  declaration  of 
what  was  included  in  that  common  Christianity.  It 
defined  the  true  limits  beyond  which  no  teacher  f  could 
go  without  infringing  the  fundamental  principles  of  the 
faith.    "With  the  exception  of  one  word,  that  Creed  con- 

*  See  his  epistle  to  Alexander  and  Arias.    Euseb.  V.  C,  ii.  CO,  70. 

+  It  must  be  remembered  that  subscription  was  exacted  at  once  of  the 
clergy,  as  beinp;  teachei"s,  but  not  of  the  laity.  Anathemas,  however,  were 
pronounced  against  all  who  openly  denied  the'  doctrines  of  the  Creed. 


Essay  ly.]  IDEOLOGY  AND  SUBSCEIPTION.  £01 

tainocl  no  single  statement  in  wliicli,  both  as  regarded 
snbstance  and  form,  all  Cliiirclies  had  not  previoiisly 
coincided.  That  word  represented  not  "the  harden- 
ing of  fluid  and  unsettled  notions,"  but  the  existence 
of  one  fixed  universal  conviction,  that  the  centre  and 
life  of  Christianity  is  found  in  the  recognition  of  the 
absolute  and  perfect  Godhead  of  its  Founder  and  Head. 
The  word  was  chosen,  not  by  Constantino,  but  by  those 
divines  who  clearly  perceived  the  vital  character  of  the 
question  at  issue.  They  chose  it  because  nothing  short 
of  an  exact  definition  would  deliver  Christendom  from 
the  corruption  w^itli  which  it  was  menaced.  The  word 
was  open  to  cavil,  and,  if  left  unexplained,  to  fair  ob- 
jection;- but  with  such  explanation  as  was  at  once 
given  and  accepted,  it  expressed  the  mind  of  the  uni- 
iversal  Church.  It  must  not  be  supposed  that  the  object 
was  to  express  the  personal  opinions  of  the  Bishops 
present ;  even  the  arguments  by  which  tliey  might  de- 
fend those  opinions  v\^ere  matters,  comparatively  speak- 
ing, of  indifference.  In  selecting  that  word  they  were 
actuated  but  by  one  wish — that  of  expressing  clearly 
and  unmistakably  the  conviction  of  the  entire  body  in 
whose  name  tliey  spoke.  The  most  unlearned,  the  least 
conversant  with  technical  terms  or  philosophical  dis- 
cussions among  them,  were  rejoiced  to  have  that  word, 
feeling  that  they  could  not  show  their  faces  to  their 
own  congregations  if  they  returned  w^ithout  having 
recorded  sucli  a  decision  as  might  exclude  for  ever  the 
incongruous  and  hostile  element  from  the  sphere  of 
Christian  communion.  Constantino  did  but  giv^e  effect 
to  the  universal  will.  They  inaugurated  the  doctrinal 
limitation  ;  he  gave  it  for  the  time  legal  validity.  Xor 
must  it  be  lost  sight  of,  that  all  the  special  pleading,  all 
the  philosophical  speculations  and  technical  innovations 
began,  as  indeed  has  always  been  the  case,  not  witli  tlie 

*  Sec  Athanasius,  '  Do  vSyn.  Nic.,'  §  20-24,  and  Basil,  Ep.  52,  with  Gar- 
nicr's  note.  It  is  well  known  that  all  the  great  divines  of  that  age  were  quite 
satisfied  with  an  honest  acceptance  of  the  doctrine  expressed  by  'O/xoovaiosy 
even  in  the  case  of  those  who  for  a  time  were  unwilling  to  receive  tliat  word. 
Few  writers  of  late  have  dealt  with  the  qnestion  so  fairly  as  the  Leaedictiue 
editors,  or  as  Tillcmont,  'Momoircs  II.  E.,'  torn.  iv.  p.  125. 
9* 


202  ^^'^^  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  IV. 

maintainors,  but  with  tlie  opponents  of  the  okl  Catliolic 
doctrine.  ''That  there  was  a  time  when  God  the  AVord 
was  not;  tliat  lie  was  alien  in  essential  substance  from 
the  absolute  God ;"  tliese  and  similar  forms  of  what  the 
Church  then  rejected — and  so  long  as  she  exists  will 
ever  reject  as  blasphemy — had  their  origin  in  the  cat- 
echetical schools  tainted  most  deeply  by  neoplatonism. 
The  necessity  of  a  new,  a  more  searching  and  com- 
prehensive, and  at  the  same  time  a  more  exclusive 
term,  was  entirely  owing  to  those  metaphysical  specu- 
lations. The  Church  acknowledged  the  truth  of  the 
conclusion  drawn  by  its  most  clearsighted  champions, 
that  the  introduction  of  an  intermediate  Being,  neither 
truly  -God  nor  truly  man,  was  a  subtle  but  unquestion- 
able form  of  polytheism,^  subversive  of  all  the  principles  ^ 
on  which  the  redemption  of  humanity  depends.  The  ^f 
decision  was,  undoubtedly,  exclusive.  It  excluded — 
it  ejected  as  a  poison,  a  gangrene,  a  treasonable  lie — 
the  doctrine  which  is  too  often  regarded  as  a  mere 
verbal  error,  or  one  depending  upon  the  inherent  im- 
perfection of  a  finite  intellect ;  but  for  that  exclusiveness 
the  Church,  and  the  Church  alone  is  responsible.  So 
far  indeed  was  the  State  from  taking  upon  itself  the 
responsibility  of  this  "  doctrinal  limitation,"  that  within 
a  very  short  time  its  whole  power  was  brought  to  beau 
upon  the  Church,  in  order  to  compel  it  to  reverse  iw 
decision  and  to  eliminate  that  one  word  from  its  creed. 
During  the  reigns  of  two  most  able  and  powerful  sov- 
ereigns no  means  of  fraud,  intimidation,  or  violence 
were  spared  to  produce  the  result  which  is  now  repre- 
sented to  be  so  desirable — that  of  sweeping  away  the  • 
limitary  definition  which  shut  out  the  only  influential 
dissentients  from  office  and  communion  in  the  Church. 
It  was  assuredly  a  providential  dispensation  to  test  the 
sincerity  of  the  Cliurch's  faith,  and  to  demonstrate  its 
independence  of  the  State.  An  age  of  terrible  struggles 
intervened  before  the  final  triumph  ;  but  during  that 
time  the  principle  took  sucli  root  that  no  storms  have 

*  This  is  the  f:^reat,  the  palmary  argumeut  of  Athanasius,  adopted  by 
I?asil,  Gregory,  and  all  the  great  divines  \vho  have  uritten  against  Arianism. 


Essay  IV.]  IDEOLOGY  AND  SUBSCRIPTION.  203 

b'mce  shaken  it.  One  point  requires  especial  notice ;  it 
is  often  overlooked:  neither  Constantino  nor  his  succes- 
sors attempted  to  introduce  the  terms  of  tlie  Arian 
heresy  in  the  formularies  which  they  recommended,* 
freely  as  they  allowed  the  doctrines  of  Arianism  to  he 
preached;  they  merely  wished  to  exclude  from  the 
Creed  the  one  word  of  doctrinal  limitation  ;  and  in  that 
attempt  they  failed.  The  early  Church  knew  that  it 
was  a  matter  of  life  or  death  ;  and  in  the  position  where 
that  Church  left  us  v/e  stand,  with  a  Creed  definitely 
stating,  not  explaining  or  discussing,  but  simply  de- 
claring, those  doctrinal  facts  f  without  which  our  com- 
mon Christianity  would  be  a  mere  name. 

36.  That  the  actual  position  of  our  own  Church  is 
definite  and  unmistakable  is  recognized  both  by  those 
^who  maintain,  and  not  less  distinctly  by  those  who  as- 
sail it,  as  is  shown  by  the  direction  of  their  attacks.  It 
is  in  principle  precisely  that  of  the  Apostolic  Church,  in 
fact  of  all  portions  of  the  Church,  in  the  best  and  j)urest 
ages.  The  first  object  of  our  Church  is  to  determine 
tlie  grounds  on  which  all  its  doctrine  is  based.  That 
slie  does  by  enumerating  the  canonical  books  of  Holy 
Writ,  to  which  alone  she  appeals  for  authoritative  con- 
firmation of  her  teaching.  Belief  in  the  Scriptures,  in 
their  genuineness,  authenticity,  and  divine  orgin — be- 
lief in  them  not  merely  as  fundamental,  but  as  the 
foundation  of  all  fundamentals  ^X  '^^^  ^^^  ^^^^  sufiiciont 
warrant  for  the  Creeds  §  themselves,  is  the  first  condi- 
tion of  communion,  a  condition  not  stated  simply  be- 
cause it  is  assumed  as  a  point  about  which  no  question 
could  be  raised  by  Christians.     The  Bible  is  to  our 

*  Hence  not  only  Constanline,  but  even  Constantius  is  spoken  of  in  terms 
of  respect  by  stanch  but  candid  upholders  of  the  orthodox  doctrine,  as  Hilar}', 
Ambrose,  Theodoret,  and  Gregory  Kazianzen.  See  the  preface  to  G.  N.  Or. 
iv.  p.  76,  ed,  Ben. 

t  I  use  the  expression  advisedly — the  doctrines  of  the  Church  arc  facts, 
and  the  facts  are  doctriues. 

X  The  term  first  used,  if  I  mistake  not,  by  Newman.  See  '  Romanism  and 
Popular  Protestantism,'  p.  iis7.  It  coincides  with  Chillingworth's  well-known 
saying,  and  with  Hegel's  "  Dabei,"  i.  e.,  with  the  Creeds,  "gait  in  dcr  pro- 
testantischcn  Kirche  die  Bestimmunp:,  dass  die  Bibel  die  wcseutlichc  Gruud- 
lage  der  Lehre  sey." — *  Philosophic  dcr  Keligion,'  p.  29. 

§  Article  viii. 


204  ^IDS  TO  FAITH.  [E68AT1V. 

Cliiirclr'^  as  it  was  to  the  early  Clinrcli,  as  it  was  most 
distinctly  and  emphatically  to  the  Churches  of  the  Itef- 
ormation,  the  Word  of  God.  The  three  Creeds  are  ac- 
cepted and  set  forth  as  the  condensed  declaration  of  the 
articles  of  fiiith  wdiich  she  holds,  on  the  ground  of  their 
scripturality,  to  be  true,  and  on  that  of  their  importance 
to  be  fundamental.  In  the  Thirty-nine  Articles  of  Ee- 
h'gion  she  exhibits  the  whole  body  of  her  theology  as 
contradistinguished  from  that  of  churches  which  had 
corrupted,  mutilated,  or  added  to,  the  truth.  The  gen- 
eral objects  of  those  Articles  are  to  repudiate  the  errors 
of  the  Papal  system,  and  to  maintain  what  is  called  the 
Catholic  doctrine, — that  is,  the  whole  system  of  doc- 
trines recognized  by  the  Church  of  Christ  as  opposed  to 
early  heresies.f  So  far  her  position  is  clear.  \Yith  re- 
gard to  the  acts  of  adhesion  recpiired  of  her  members, 
we  find  the  same  substantial  identity  of  principle  with 
the  early  Church.  As  to  hearers  of  the  word,  to  attend- 
ants -upon  her  services,  we  readily  admit  that  no  formal 
act  of  adherence  beyond  what  is  given  in  baptism,  and 
is  afterwards  implied  by  their  acceptance  of  her  minis- 
trations, ought  to  be  required.  Nor  does  our  Church 
require  it.:j:  As  we  believe  to  have  been  the  practice 
in  the  Apostolic  age,  she  admits  all  applicants  to  free 
participation  in  any  ordinances  from  which,  judging  for 
themselves,  they  expect  to  derive  benefit ;  nor  does  she 
retain  even  so  much  of  the  discipline  of  the  post-Apos- 

*  See  Articles  xvii,  f  the  last  words),  xx.  xxii.  xxxiv.  There  cannot  be  any 
reasonable  donbt  that  the  "  word  of  God"  in  these  Articles  means  the  Bible. 
In  other  passages  it  might  possibl}^  be  explained  away,  but  the  expressions 
"Holy  Scripture"  and  "word  of  God"  were  most  certainly  synonymous  in 
the  mind  of  the  compilers  of  the  Articles,  as  they  are  now  in  the  mind  of  the 
imposcrs  of  subscription.  The  results  of  denying  that  the  word  of  God  is 
co-extensive  with  Holy  Scripture  are  drawn  out  clearly  enough  in  E.  and  R., 
pp.  170,  177. 

t  See  Dr.  Arnold's  '  Life  and  Correspondence,'  ii.  p.  136.  The  passage  is 
quoted  further  on.     Compare  Waterland,  vol.  ii.  p.  302. 

X  This  does  not  touch  the  case  of  the  Universities.  Of  course,  any  colle- 
giate or  corporate  institution  has  the  right  to  impose  its  own  conditions  for 
admission  to  its  privileges  or  benefices.  There  is  great  force  in  the  argu- 
ments of  the  pamphlet,  written,  I  believe,  by  Mr.  Maurice,  'Subscription  no 
Bondage,'  1835 — "  In  all  schools  and  universities  there  is  a  contract  expressed 
or  itnplicd  between  the  teacher  and  the  learner,  as  to  the  principles  on  which 
the  one  agrees  to  teach  and  the  other  to  learn— and  to  state  tlie  terms  of  tliis 
contract  is  at  once  the  most  honest  method,  and  the  most  serviceable  to  edu- 
cation." 


Eb3Ay1Y.]  ideology   AND  SUBSCRIPTION.  205 

tolic  Cliurcli  as  might  be  held  desirable  in  order  to  pro- 
tect the  most  solemn  rites  from  profanation.  Even  tliat 
risk  is  incurred  in  preference  to  the  possible  exclusion 
of  timid  and  scrupulous  believers.  Onr  Church,  to  use 
a  somewhat  pedantic  but  not  inexpressive  term,  is  mul- 
titudinous, in  the  sense  that  it  does  not  inquire  minutely 
and  jealously  into  the  qualifications  and  opinions  of  its 
members,  but  opens  wide  its  gates  day  and  night,  and 
offers  freely  to  all  the  leaves  that  were  given  for  the 
healing  of  the  nations.  But  that  is  quite  a  different 
question  from  the  terms  of  admission  to  the  functions 
of  the  ministry."  Our  Church  has  learned  from  St. 
Paul,  from  his  fellow  Apostles,  and  from  his  Master, 
that  an  imperfect  knowledge,  much  more  denial  of  the 
truth  wdien  it  extends  to  fundamental  principles,  when 
it  touches  the  "Divine  personalities,"  and  the  authority 
of  God's  w^ord,  is  an  insuperable  disqualification  for  the 
ministerial  ofiice. 

37.  It  is  disingenuous  to  represent  this  diflference  be- 
tween a  lay  and  clerical  member  of  the  Church  as  im- 
plying tJiat  one  is  free  to  inquire,  the  other  bound  to 
profess  what,  be  it  true  or  be  it  false,  may  not  be  true 
to  him.  The  layman  is  simply  treated,  so  far  and  so 
long  as  he  chooses  to  be  so  treated,  as  one  whose  opin- 
ions are  in  process  of  formation  ;  whereas  the  other,  by 
the  mere  fact  of  his  assuming  the  functions  of  a  teacher, 
declares  that  upon  all  essential  points  his  miiiA  is  al- 
ready made  up.  A  cchool  of  theology  may,  within  cer- 
tain linnts,  be  a  fair  arena  for  speculative  conflicts  ;  but 
the  chair  of  the  professor,  and  a  fortiori  the  pulpit  of 
the  minister,  should  be  occupied  by  one  who  is  in  pos- 
session of  the  truth.  It  has  been  stated,  that  whenever 
laymen  are  put  in  positions  where  their  influence  may 

*  Thus  Watcrland — "  Subscription  is  not  a  term  of  lay  communion,  but  of 
ministerial  conformity,  on  acceptance  of  trusts  and  privileges,"  vol.  ii.  p.  3G2. 
Again,  "  This  writer  cannot  distinguish  between  ejecting  and  not  admitting, 
nor  between  Church-communion  and  Church-trusts.  I  said  not  a  word  about 
ciecting  any  man  out  of  communion,"  ib.  p.  392.  Bishop  Bull  takes  precisely 
the  same  view,  '  Vindication  of  the  Church  of  England,'  vol.  ii.  p.  211,  ed. 
Burton.  So  also  does  Bishop  Jeremy  Taylor,  'Ductor  diibifaiitium,'  iii.  c.  4. 
In  accordance  with  this  principle,  Athanasius  admitted  the  Semi-Arians  to 
communion,  although  they  would  not  accept  the  term  Llomousiou;  but  bo 
would  not  allow  them  to  hold  office  iu  the  Church. 


206  AIDS  TO  FAITII.  [Essay  IV. 

affect  the  religions  principles  of  members  of  the  Church, 
the  same  guarantees  arc  exacted  as  in  the  case  of  min- 
isters. Thongh  incorrect  in  point  of  fact,  that  state- 
ment bears  Avitness  to  the  reasonableness  of  the  condi- 
tion, that  professed  teachers  of  the  Church's  doctrines 
ought,  in  some  form  or  other,  to  give  an  assurance  that 
they  know  what  these  doctrines  are,  and  that  they  re- 
ceive them  and  intend  to  teach  them  without  any  essen- 
tial modification.  There  are  several  conceivable  ways 
in  which  the  Church  may  satisfy  herself  upon  this  point; 
but  surely  the  easiest  and  most  natural — the  least  open 
to  the  charge  of  unfairness — is  to  state  clearly,  broadly-, 
and  completely,  the  principles,  and  doctrines,  which  slie 
holds  to  be  fundamental,  and  to  require  of  those  who 
are  candidates  for  the  most  important  of  all  oifices,  a 
declaration  deliberately  made  and  attested  by  the  sim- 
ple act  of  subscription,  that  they  are  one  in  mind  and 
in  convictions  with  herself.  The  Church  can  do  no  less 
than  demand  such  a  pledge,  that  at  the  time  when  a 
man  accepts  the  office,  he  allows,^"^  that  is,  he  honestly 
and  unreservedly  approves  and  assents  to  her  code  of 
faith. 

38.  This,  it  is  said,  is  equivalent  to  a  2)Tomise  that 
a  man  will  believe,  and  that  is  a  promise  which  it  is 
not  in  his  j^ower  to  fulfil.  But  so  far  as  regards  helief, 
subscription  is  not  a  promise,  but  a  declaration. f  What- 
ever promise  is  implied  concerns  not  our  convictions, 
but  our  acts.  We  pledge  ourselves  simj)ly  to  this, 
that,  so  long  as  we  hold  an  office  of  trust,  we  will  not 

*  It  is  strange  that  auy  scholar  should  raise  a  question  as  to  the  meaning 
of  this  word.  It  occurs  frequently  in  our  early  formularies,  and  always  in  the 
sense  of  approving  and  accepting.  Sec  also  Luke  xi.  4S  ;  1  Thess.  ii.  4.  As 
to  its  meaning  in  Subscription,  Jeremy  Taylor  writes  thus  (1.  c.)  : — "  Lubcns 
et  ex  animo  subscripsi,  that's  our  form  in  'the  Church  of  England.  Consen- 
tiens  subscripsi :  so  it  was  in  the  ancient  Church,  as  St.  Austin  reports.  I 
consent  to  the  thing,  my  mind  goes  with  it." 

t  Thus  Jeremy  Taylor,  1.  c,  c.  xxiii.  "Ecclesiastical  subscription  only 
gives  witness  oi  our  present  consent,  but  according  to  its  design  and  purpose 
for  the  future  it  binds  us  only  to  the  conservation'of  peace  and  unity."  His 
view  of  the  act  of  subscription  is  of  great  importance.  "  It  implies  that  he 
who  subscribes  does  actually  approve  the  articles  overwritten — does,  at  the 
time,  believe  them  to  be  such  as  it  is  said  they  are ;  true,  if  they  only  say 
they  are  true ;  useful,  if  they  pretend  to  usefulness ;  necessary,  if  it  is  atfirmed 
they  are  necessary.  For  \l  the  subscriber  believe  not  this,' he  by  hypocrisy 
Bcrvcs  the  ends  of  public  peace,  and  his  own  preferment." 


Essay  IV.]  IDEOLOGY  AND  SUBSCPwIPTlON.  207 

contravene  the  purposes  for  wliicli  it  was  iustitutecl. 
The  objects  of  our  faith  are,  indeed,  immutable  truths ; 
but,  knowing  the  chaugeableness  of  the  subjective 
faculties  which  apprehend  them,  and  the  manifold  dis- 
turbances to  which  spiritual  development  is  liable,  we 
make  no  promise  that  we  will  retain  those  convictions  ; 
although,  from  the  very  nature  of  convictions  touching 
the  highest  interests  of  our  being,  we  entertain  a  hope, 
a  trust,  a  something  in  all  honest  men  approaching  to, 
and  in  single-hearted  believers  identified  with,  a  con- 
fident assurance  that  we  shall  retain  them  to  the  end. 
The  promise,  however,  as  to  acts  is  binding,  on  the 
plainest  grounds  of  moral  obligation,  and  that  without 
any  reference  to  the  possible  contingency  of  legal  pen- 
alties and  disqualifications  in  case  of  its  violation. 

39.  This  point  is  of  primary  importance.  It  concerns 
our  conscience  more  nearly  than  any  considerations 
bearing  upon  our  ministerial  position.  It  has  been 
lately  asserted,  as  I  believe  for  the  first  time,  that  the 
moral  obligation  of  the  act  of  subscription  is  commen- 
surate and  identical  w^th  the  legal  obligation.  Now 
the  efi'ect  of  this  doctrine,  were  it  generally  adopted, 
would  be  the  practical  annihilation  of  all  obligation, 
in  the  great  majority  of  cases  where  any  question  could 
arise.  It  is  but  too  obvious  that  a  man  may,  if  not 
directly,  yet  by  insinuation  and  unmistakable  inference, 
attack  even  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Church 
without  incurring  the  danger  of  legal  conviction.  In 
fact,  so  far  as  the  mere  legal  obligation  is  concerned, 
there  could  be  no  object  whatever  in  requiring  sub- 
scrij^tion.  That  act  does  not  render  a  man  liable  to 
legal  consequences  in  a  higher  or  difierent  degree  than 
would  the  acceptance  of  an  ofiice  to  which  certain  con- 
ditions are  attached  by  the  legislature.  It  is  perfectly 
competent  to  the  supreme  authority  to  inflict  depriva- 
tion for  any  infringement  of  those  conditions,  without 
reference  to  the  previous  concurrence  of  ministers  in 
the  definition  of  their  duties.  The  act  of  subscrijition 
would  be  superfluous,  if  it  did  not  superadd  to  the  legal 
a  perfectly  distinct  and  incomparably  higher  obligation, 


208  ^I^S  TO  FAITH.  [Ess AT  IV. 

— even  one  which  binds  the  conscience  of  an  lionest 
man.* 

40.  The  existence  of  the  moral  obligation  does  not. 
however,  determine  its  exact  nature  and  extent.  The 
question  still  remains,  how  far  the  act  of  subscription 
implies  conformity  between  a  man's  inmost  convictions 
and  the  doctrinal  formularies  of  the  Church. f  That 
the  conformity  does  not  necessarily  extend  to  an  abso- 
lute and  entire  acceptation  of  any  human  formularies, 
as  exhaustive  or  perfect  representations  of  Divine  truth, 
may  readily  be  conceded.  Such  a  demand  would,  in 
fact,  be  tantamount  to  an  assumption  of  verbal  and 
plenary  inspiration,  which  the  compilers  of  the  docu- 
ments and  the  imposers  of  subscription  would  be  the 
first  to  disclaim.  The  conformity  must,  however,  amount 
to  as  much  as  this.  Taking  the  articles  of  religion  in 
their  natural  and  obvious  meaning,;]:  as  upon  the  whole 
with  singular  unanimity,  and  in  the  most  essential  points 
with  absolute  unanimity,  they  have  been  understood 
and  interpreted  by  our  great  divines,  the  subscriber 
recognizes  in  them  a  faithful  exhibition  of  Christian 
doctrine,  the  rule  of  his  public  teaching,  the  authorita- 
tive expression  of  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints. 
On  two  points  especially,  an  explicit  and  unhesitating 
act  of  adhesion  is  demanded — the  canon  of  Holy  Scrip- 
ture, and  the  Creeds  which  present  its  fundamental 
doctrines  in  a  concentrated  form.§     Short  of  this  con- 

^  *  See  the  touching  and  unanswerable  statement  of  Mr.  Whiston,  quoted  by 
Waterhmd,  vol.  ii.  p.  400. 

t  This  is  the  declaration  of  the  four  Oxford  Tutors  in  1S41 : — "We  readily 
admit  tlic  necessity  of  allowing  that  liberty  in  interpreting  the  formularies 
of  our  Cliurch  which  has  been  advocated  by  many  of  our  most  learned  bishops 
and  eminent  divines;  but  this  tract  puts  forth  iiew  and  staitling  views  as  to 
the  extent  fo  which  that  liberty  may  be  carried.  For  if  we  are  right  in  our 
apprehension  of  the  author's  meaning,  we  arc  at  a  loss  to  sec  v/hat  security 
would  remain,  were  his  principles  generally  recognized,  that  the  most  plainly 
erroneous  doctrines  and  practices  of  the  Church  of  Rome  might  not  be  in- 
culcated in  the  lecture-rooms  of  the  university  and  from  the  pulpits  of  our 
churches." 

X  See  Dr.  Waterland  on  *  Arian  Subscription,'  vol.  ii.  p.  o35.  Bishops  Bull, 
vol.  ii.  p.  211,  and  J.  Taylor,  quoted  above. 

p  To  these  should  be  added  the  doctrine  of  the  Sacraments.  The  statute 
of  Elizabeth  13,  which  requires  subscription  to  all  the  Articles,  spocilies  in 
the  first  ])lace  such  only  as  concern  the  confession  of  the  Christian  fiith  and 
the  doctrine  of  the  Uoly  Sacranienta.  See  Collier,  'Ecclesiastical  Uistory,' 
vol.  vi.  pp.  4S5  and  4S9. 


Essay  IV.]  IDEOLOGY  AND  SUBSCEIPTION.  209 

formitj,  it  is  certain  that  a  minister  cannot  syinpatliize 
with  the  spirit,  or  give  effect  to  the  purposes,  of  the 
Church.  Common  sense,  in  this  case  fully  in  accord 
with  the  highest  reason,  is  a  sufficient  guide  to  the  most 
cautious  and  scrupulous  inquirer.  ]^ or  can  I  forbear 
from  quoting  the  words  of  one  whom  no  man  will  sus- 
pect of  any  tendency  to  dogmatic  intolerance,  any  dis- 
regard of  even  exaggerated  sensitiveness.  In  a  letter 
to  one  who  had  felt  much  perplexity  about  subscription, 
after  alluding  to  difficulties  formerly  experienced  by 
himself.  Dr.  Arnold'**  writes  thus  : — "  The  real  honesty 
of  subscription  appears  to  me  to  consist  in  a  sympathy 
with  the  system  to  which  you  subscribe,  in  a  preference 
of  it,  not  negatively  merely  as  better  than  others,  but 
positively,  as  in  itself  good  and  true  in  its  most  charac- 
teristic points.  Now,  the  most  characteristic  points  of 
the  English  Church  are  two ;  that  it  maintains  what  is 
called  the  Catholic  Faith  as  opposed  to  the  early  heresies, 
and  is  also  decidedly  a  Reformed  Church  as  opposed 
to  the  priestly  and  Papal  system."  Such  must  have 
been  the  feelings  of  the  Oxford  tutorf  who  some  twenty 
years  since  bore  this  testimony  to  our  Church,  witli 
especial  reference  to  its  safeguard  of  subscription — '*  I 
know  not  where  free  scope  may  be  found  for  the  feel- 
ings of  awe,  mystery,  tenderness,  and  devotedness, 
when  they  struggle  for  utterance  in  the  breast  of  the 
spiritual  man,  more  freely  than  in  our  own  communion : 
where  our  sons  are  taught,  vntlioid  adding  thereto^  or 
dlminisMng  aught  from  it^  the  great  mystery  of  godli- 
ness :  God  manifest  in  the  flesh,  justified  in  the  Sj^irit, 
seen  of  angels,  preached  unto  the  Gentiles,  believed  on 
in  the  world,  received  up  into  glory."  No  one  holding 
those  principles  could  feel  any  difficulty  in  subscription. 
Such  a  man  is  satisfied,  not  because  he  is  safe  from 
legal  consequences,  but  because  he  feels  himself  in 
harmony  with  the  spirit  of  his  Church,  because  he 
knows  that  he  is  ofi*ering  an  honest  act  of  fealty,  and  is 
willing,  without  subterfuge  or  equivocation,  to  carry 

*  *  Life  and  Correspondence,'  vol.  ii.  p.  177. 

t  '  Letter  to  Rev.  T.  T.  Churton  by  Rev.  IL  B.  Wilson,'  1S41. 


210  ^II^S  TO  FAITH.  [EssATlV. 

out  her  intentions  to  the  hest  of  his  ability.  Should 
it,  indeed,  unhappily  be  the  case,  that  in  after  years  his 
mind  should  be  so  affected  as  to  reject  not  merely  a 
word  here  and  there,  the  meaning  or  application  of  ex- 
pressions about  which  the  most  learned  and  candid 
writers  have  differed,  or  even  positive  determinations 
upon  questions  of  subordinate  importance,  but  the  great 
truths,  the  objective  facts,  the  fundamental  doctrines 
set  forth  plainly  and  unmistakably  in  those  formularies, 
then  surely  the  moral  obligation  is  positive.  It  leaves 
but  one  alternative.  He  cannot  do  the  work  which  he 
has  undertaken,  cannot  preach  the  doctrines,  cannot 
proclaim  the  facts  which  are  the  very  foundation  of  the 
Church  :  how  can  he  retain  the  trust  ?  If  people  did 
not  understand  this  to  be  our  feeling  as  ministers,  they 
would  speedily  seek  for  some  other  guarantee.  If  it 
were  generally  believed  that,  when  called  upon  to  clear 
himself  from  "  odious  imputations,"  a  minister  might 
put  a  stop  to  all  further  inquiry  by  simply  renewing 
his  subscription,  with  a  clear  understanding  that  there- 
by he  means  no  more  than  that  he  recognizes  a  legal 
obligation,  retaining  the  right  of  explaining  away,  or 
even  denying  privately  and  publicly,  the  very  state- 
ments to  which  he  puts  his  hand,  the  whole  body  of  the 
laity  would  scout  the  very  notion  of  subscription,  would 
reject  it  as  illusorj^,  as  a  mere  sham.*  The  only  light 
in  which  they  look  upon  subscription  is,  that  it  is  a 
means  of  ascertaining  what  truths  a  man  holds,  and 
what  he  holds  himself  bound  to  teach, — not  surely  upon 
what  terms  he  may  consider  himself  justified  in  retain- 
ing office  or  emoluments  in  the  Church.     They  will  be 

*  These  words  express  with  equal  force  and  accuracy  the  oreneral  feelings 
of  the  laity.  "  If  the  Church  of  ICngland  really  possesses  that  element  "of 
vitality  which  her  sons  proudly  believe  to  be  inherent  in  her,  she  will  never 
flinch  from  vindicating  the  integrity  of  her  Articles  and  the  uniformity  of  her 
belief;  but  if  she  should  be  ill-advised  enough  to  allow  her  tests  to  bc'broken 
down  and  rendered  void  by  strained  and  lic^Mitious  expositions,  if  she  place 
her  only  hope  of  safety  and  unity  in  allowing  her  sons  to  profess  one  creed 
and  believe  another,  let  her  prepare  for  that  well-merited  downfall  to  which 
deceit  and  double  dealing  never  fail  to  conduct."  A  tract  bearing  the  title, 
'The  Articles  Construed  by  Themselves,'  Oxford,  ISll,  attributed,  as  I  be- 
lieve, to  R.  Lowe,  Esq.,  formerly  of  Magdalen  College,  now  Vice-President  of 
the  Committee  of  Council  on  Education. 


EssatIY.]  ideology  AND  SUBSCEIPTION  211 

prepared  to  allow  time  for  consideration  to  any  man 
harassed  by  perplexing  doubts  :  no  man  would  be  re- 
garded with  more  entire  sympathy  and  tenderness  than 
one  whose  spirit  might  be  overwrought  in  its  struggles 
with  storms  which  haunt  the  higher  regions  of  intel- 
lectual life  :  but  so  long  as  he  works,  prays,  preaches, 
administers  the  sacraments  of  the  Church,  or  discharges 
the  kindred  and  no  less  responsible  duty  of  forming 
the  character  of  youth  under  the  sanction  of  the  minis- 
terial office,  laymen  presume,  and  would  be  scandalized 
to  hear  it  doubted,  that  he  holds  substantially  the  con- 
victions which  he  professed,  when  formally,  publicly, 
deliberately,  at  a  most  critical  moment  of  his  life,  he 
signed  his  name  in  token  of  unfeigned  assent  to  the 
Articles  of  his  Church. 

41.  One  reason  assigned  for  the  removal  of  all 
doctrinal  tests  may  require  special  consideration.* 
It  is  stated  that  there  is  a  wide-spread  and  increasing 
alienation  from  the  Church  ;  that  the  minds  of  thought- 
ful men  reject  the  views  of  Christian  doctrine  common- 
ly advanced  in  our  churches  and  chapels — that  is,  in 
other  words,  by  the  teachers  of  nearly  all  religious 
denominations :  and  it  is  distinctly  implied,  that  this 
alienation  is  to  be  attributed  to  the  growing  sense  of 
incompatibility  between  the  tenets  generally  regarded 
as  essential  to  Christianity,  and  the  conclusions  of 
reason  from  the  progress  of  science,  and  more  espe- 
cially "  from  the  advance  of  general  knowledge  con- 
cerning the  inhabitancy  of  the  world.  We  might 
question  the  fact  of  an  increasing  alienation.  We 
might  argue  that,  compared  with  the  state  of  the 
church  in  the  last  century,  her  existing  condition  is  one 
of  wider  and  far  more  effectual  influence ;  that  every 
test  upon  which  reliance  can  be  placed  indicates  a 
strengthening  of  religious  convictions ;  that  the  num- 
ber of  communicants  is  multiplied  at  least  tenfold ; 
that  the  very  fiice  of  the  country  is  changed   by  the 

*  Mr.  Wilson  can  hardly  hope  to  disprove  his  own  forcible  statement. 
*'  Schemes  of  comprehension  of  necessity  defeat  their  own  design  :  if  weak 
brethren  arc  included  on  the  one  hand,  weak  brethren  are  excluded  on  the 
other."— Letter  to  Rev.  T.  T.  Churtou. 


212  ^^^^3  TO  FAITU  [Essay  IV. 

mnltitiido  of  clinrclics  built,  enlarged,  or  restored ; 
and  that,  for  tlie  first  time  since  the  Reformation,  our 
Church  has  grappled  with  the  real  difficulties  of  her 
position,  sends  forth  missionaries  to  all  quarters  of  the 
earth,  and  has  organized  the  colonial  episcopate.  We 
might  point  to  many  of  the  greatest  names  in  art, 
science,  literature,  and  politics,  which  within  the  same 
period  have  recognized  in  our  Church  a  true  manifesta- 
tion of  the  Divine  life.  Nor,  again,  canit  be  denied  that 
the  alleged  facts  of  the  census  of  1851,  in  themselves 
most  questionable,  have  been  most  unfairly  applied. 
Certainly,  of  all  inferences,  the  least  reasonable  is,  that 
the  absence  of  some  45  per  cent,  of  the  population 
from  public  service  was  in  any  way  attributable  to 
conscientious  objections  to  the  doctrine  taught  in  our 
churches,  or  to  a  conviction  that  heathenism,  after  all, 
is  no  very  lamentable  condition  of  two-thirds  of  the 
human  race.  We  should  have  thought  that  ignorance, 
vice,  and  indifference,  on  the  one  hand,  on  the  other, 
the  want  of  sufficient  and  proper  accommodation,  were 
generally  recognized  as  the  main  causes  of  what  cer- 
tainly was  a  most  painful  result  of  an  inquiry  into  the 
actual  number  of  worshippers.  Upon  these  points  we 
need  not  dilate ;  but  this  w^e  maintain  without  hesita- 
tion,— the  alienation,  to  whatever  extent  it  may  really 
exist,  is  not  owing  to  the  doctrines  set  forth  in  the 
Creeds  of  our  Church,  and  embodied  in  her  liturgical 
formularies.  The  surest  way  of  emptying  any  church 
or  chapel  is  to  substitute  for  earnest  preaching  of  those 
very  doctrines  which  are  specially  selected  for  attack 
or  suspicion,  a  vague,  cold,  rationalistic  system  of  so- 
called  Christian  ethics.*  Let  the  people  suspect  that 
their  ethical  development  is  the  single  object  of  all 
the  instrumentality  of  the  Church,  they  would  simply 
throw  it  off  as  cumbrous  and  superfluous ;  and  they 
would  be  right.  The  experiment  has  been  tried  here 
and  abroad.     It  has  had  one   unvarying   result.     In 

*  Not  but  that  our  strictest  dogmatical  writers  are  most  careful  to  assign 
its  right  place  to  morality.  Waterlantl  says,  with  rcforcucc  to  this  very 
question  of  subscription,  '"' Every  heresy  in  morality  is  of  more  pernicious 
consequence  than  heresies  in  point  of  positive  religion." 


Essay  IV.]  IDEOLOGY  AND  SUBSCEimON.  213 

Germany,  where  for  a  time  it  had  free  play,  it  alien- 
ated the  great  body  of  the  nation  from  the  communion 
of  the  Church.  In  England  sufficient  proof  has  been 
given  tliat  a  '^  prudential  system  of  ethics "  not  only 
fails  "as  a  restraining  force  upon  society,"  but  that, 
disjoined  from  the  vital  doctrines  of  Christianity,  it 
leads  rapidly  to  the  decay,  and  ends  in  the  dissolution, 
of  any  denomination  by  which  it  is  adopted.  This  is 
the  case  even  in  independent  communities  where  the 
principal  parts  of  the  service  are  adjusted  by  the  min- 
ister and  Jiis  congregation — where  prayer  and  psalm- 
ody may  be  kept  in  harmony  with  preaching,  however 
rationalistic.  But  in  a  church  where  the  doctrines 
taught  in  the  Creeds  find  an  expression  in  every  prayer, 
the  contradiction  between  the  sermon  of  a  rationalist 
and  the  words  which  he  is  constrained  to  utter  in  his 
ministerial  functions,  will  always  be,  and  ought  always 
to  be,  fatal  to  his  influence.  If  the  congregation  have 
good  reason  to  suspect  that,  in  reciting  the  Creeds,  the 
minister  looks  upon  himself  as  subjected  to  the  hard 
bondage  of  uttering  what  he  inwardly  disavows,  or  re- 
gards as  an  "  unhaj)py  "  form ;  that  in  the  petitions  of 
the  Litany  he  uses  expressions  touching  the  "  Divine 
personalities  "  which  are  to  him  little  more  than  meta- 
physical abstractions,  or  speculative  conclusions  of  the 
schools ;  if  they  believe  that,  from  the  opening  prayer 
to  the  final  blessing,  there  has  been  a  constant  struggle, 
a  series  of  inward  protests,  Jesuitical  reservations  or 
interpretations,  going  on  within  the  mind  of  the 
reader;  whatever  else  may  be  the  effect  upon  their 
hearts,  one  effect  is  sure,  their  moral  sense  will  be 
shocked,  they  will  recoil  in  indignation  from  such 
hypocrisy.  Even  supposing  he  should  have  commu- 
nicated to  them  his  own  unhappy  doubts  and  repug- 
nances, they  will  feel  that  it  is  a  bad  and  evil  thing  for 
them  to  share  in  acts  of  such  glaring  and  flagrant  in- 
consistency. They  will  soon  desert  the  church  alto- 
gether, or  testify  their  contempt  for  the  ordinances  or 
the  minister,  by  their  demeanour  when  he  preaches,  or 
by  their  expressive  silence  in  tlie  acts  of  common  ^vor- 


214  -^^^S  TO  FAIXn.  [Essay  IV. 

ship.  One  thing  must  he  looked  in  the  face.  The 
abolition  of  subscription  to  those  doctrines  which  find 
expression  in  our  Liturgy  ^'  would  be  utterly  futile 
■unless  that  Liturgy  itself  were  entirely  reconstructed. 
No  partial  reform,  not  the  widest  reform  which  has 
ever  been  suggested,  or  would  be  tolerated  by  the  most 
indifierent  and  sceptical  congregation  in  this  land, 
would  free  from  intellectual  bondage  the  conscience  of 
those  who  are  now  calling  for  the  relaxation  of  sub- 
scription. It  is  not  a  mere  phrase  here  and  there 
which  would  change  their  position ;  it  is  the  very 
spirit  of  Christianity,  full  of  the  recognition  of  its 
most  special  and  characteristic  truths,  which  drives  the 
minister  to  tlie  alternative  of  speaking  as  a  believer  in 
each  and  all  essential  doctrines,  or  of  standing  self-con- 
victed and  self-condemned  in  the  presence  of  Ilim 
whom  he  mocks  by  the  iitterance  of  prayers  which  he 
iuAvardly  disavows. 

What  we  desire  is  this, — to  bring  into  the  fold  of 
Christ's  Church  all  who  are  estranged  from  its  com- 
munion; but  it  must  be  a  complete  and  an  honest 
work.  Our  commission  is  to  give  and  teach  the  truth, 
the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth.  The 
Christian  faith  is  a  perfect  and  indissoluble  whole.  We 
cannot  consent  to  mutilate  or  disfigure  it.  We  cannot 
entrust  it  to  the  care  of  any  ministers  who  are  not  pre- 
pared to  give  full  and  satisfactory  pledges  that  they 
accept  it  as  a  whole.  We  have  no  fear  of  any  conse- 
quences, so  long  as  men  can  rely  npon  the  trustworthiness 
of  the  agents  through  whom  the  Church  acts.  The 
one  thing  of  which  all  need  to  be  assured  is,  that  their 
ministers  hold  fast  the  form  of  sound  words ;  the  truth 
once  delivered  to  the  saints ;  the  canon  of  Holy 
Scriptures,  which  are  able  to  make  wise  unto  salvation  ; 
the  knowledge  of  the  Father  and  the  Son,  which  is 
eternal  life ;  in  a  word,  iliith  in  the  Incarnation  and 
the  Atonement, "without  any  subtlety  of  interpretation, 
in  the  plain  sense  accepted  by  all  the  Cliurches  of 
Christendom.     Upon  subordinate,  or  purely  specula- 

*  This  was  distinctly  felt  by  the  loaders  in  the  Ariun  conirovorsy  in  the 
lust  century.     See  Dr.  Watcrhiud's  tract  ou  *  Ariau  .Subscription/  vol.  ii. 


Essay  IV.]  IDEOLOGY  AND  SUBSCllirTION.  215 

tive  questions,  considerable  latitude  of  interpretation 
is  conceded  —  the  wider  and  freer  the  better  for  the 
cause  of  truth.  But  this  liberty  is  conceded  because 
men  doubt  not  that  they  who  use  it  accept  those 
fundamental  truths.  Abuse  of  the  concession — attempts 
to  strain  the  liberty  so  as  to  unsettle  the  doctrines 
nearest  to  the  hearts  of  Christians,  w^ould  speedily 
bring  about  results  the  very  opposite  to  those  contem- 
plated by  many  who  struggle  against  existing  limita- 
tions. It  must  be  borne  in  mind,  that  if  changes  were 
made,  they  would  probably  be  made  in  a  different 
direction  from  that  pointed  out  by  latitudinarians. 
To  increase,  not  to  diminish  our  securities, — to  exclude, 
not  to  admit  incongruous  and  adverse  elements — such 
would  be  the  great  object  of  all  earnest  Christian  men  ; 
of  those  who  would  undoubtedly  take  the  lead  should 
the  national  ark  be  unloosed  from  its  moorings,  should 
the  storms  of  angry  and  unscrupulous  controversy 
once  more  thoroughly  rouse  the  national  sj^irit.  We 
are  far  from  wishing  for  any  increase  of  stringency. 
So  far  as  regards  the  terms  of  admission  to  the  minis- 
try, we  are  satisfied  with  existing  safeguards,  provided 
always  that  men  do  not  palter  with  us  in  a  double 
meaning,  that  w^e  are  safe  from  special  pleading  and 
equivocation,  that  declarations  are  made  in  the  sense 
in  which  those  who  hear  them  are  well  known  to 
receive  them, — that,  in  a  word,  we  have  precisely  the 
same  kind  of  confidence  which  is  felt  by  all  honourable 
men  who  are  parties  to  compacts  involving  the  recog- 
nition of  weighty  duties  distinctly  set  forth  and  under- 
stood. 

We  need  not  fear  the  issue  of  the  controversy.  It 
may  justify  watchfulness,  but  not  alarm.  It  is  true 
that  some  questions  have  been  raised,  which  are  not 
likely  to  be  finally  settled  in  this  generation.  The 
elements  which  have  thrown  the  mind  of  Europe  into 
a  state  of  disturbance,  have  imdoubtedly  penetrated 
very  deeply  into  England.  Our  young  men  will  have 
to  pass  through  a  fiery  trial.  It  is  not  an  age  for  rest, 
for  unreasoning  acquiescence  in  past  traditions.     The 


21(3  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  IV. 

progress  of  religious  knowledge  will  in  future  be  more 
beset  by  speculative  and  intellectual  difficulties  than 
lias  been  the  case  in  former  years.  Candidates  for  the 
ministry  must  not  be  contented  w^ith  meagre  intro- 
ductions to  Holy  Scripture,  or  a  superficial  analysis  of 
its  contents.  It  will  be  their  duty — a  duty  more 
strongly  felt  than  ever — to  ascertain  the  grounds  on 
which  the  Canon  of  Scripture  has  been  received  by 
the  Church,  and  the  proofs  of  the  genuineness  and 
authenticity  of  its  contents ;  they  will  test  more 
closely  ancf  severely  the  evidences  of  all  the  doctrinal 
statements,  to  which  after  careful  examination  they 
will  have  to  declare  their  assent.  But  in  all  this  work 
they  have  abundant  help.  The  close,  microscopic 
examination  of  the  Book  of  Life  is  daily  bringing  its 
secret  beauties  into  clearer  light.  The  progress  of 
historical  research  opens  new  fields  of  discovery  in 
which  the  Scriptural  exegetist  finds  valuable  materials. 
The  deep  spiritual  meaning  of  many  an  obscure  pas- 
sage or  neglected  fact  is  discerned  more  distinctly  by 
those  who,  candidly  but  warily,  scrutinize  the  ob- 
jections of  antagonists  to  the  faith.  The  current  of 
religious  thought  flows  in  broader  and  deeper  channels 
than  heretofore,  and  the  vessels  of  those  who  sail  under 
the  sure  guidance  of  the  Spirit  of  God  will  reach  the 
haven  freighted  with  treasures  of  great  price.  An- 
tagonisms may  indeed  become  stronger,  secessions 
perhaps  be  more  frequent ;  superstition  and  infidelity 
may  claim  each  its  share  in  the  spoil  of  troubled  and 
faithless  spirits ;  but  the  revelation  of  Christ  will  not 
lose  its  hold  upon  the  heart  of  the  humble,  nor  upon 
the  intellect  of  the  truthful  inquirer.  Our  branch  of 
the  Church  will  not  be  disinherited  of  its  privileges  or 
stripped  of  its  safeguards;  it  will  eject  rationalism  in 
every  form,  more  especially  in  the  most  un-English 
and  Jesuitical  of  all  forms,  that  of  Ideology.  It  will 
continue  to  do  its  own  proper  worlv,  preparing  its 
members  not  for  a  dreamy  state  of  repose  in  the 
bosom  of  the  universal  Parent,  but  for  a  full,  ]^erfect, 
and  conscious  life  in  tlie  presence  of  the  living  God. 


ESSAY    Y. 

THE     MOSAIC     EECORD     OF    CREATION 


10 


CONTENTS  OF  ESSAY  V. 


1.  Inteodttction  :  The  Creator,  Elo- 

uiM — Jehovau. 

2.  The  Elohistic  and  Jehovistic  theory, 

as  stated  by  Bleek — Theories  of  As- 
true,  Eichhorn,  Ilgen,  De  Wette, 
Von  Bohlen,  Gramberg,  Ewald, 
Illipfeldt,  and  Knobel. 

3.  "Want  of  unity— The  most  celebrated 

critics  convict  each  other  of  false 
criticism— Their  conclusions  value- 
less. 

4.  "Elohim"  and   "Jehovah"   not   sy- 

nonymous. 

5.  The  Creation— Unity  of    the    first 

two  chapters  of  Genesis :  they  do 
not  contain  two  distinct  accounts  of 
the  creation. 

6.  Assertion  that  the  Mosaic  cosmogony 

is  contradicted  by  the  discoveries  and 
progress  of  science,  and  that,  there- 
fore, Moses  could  not  have  been  in- 
spired. 

7.  First  supposed  difficulty,  the  age  of 

the  world. 


8.  The  words  of  Moses,  though  compre- 

hensive as  to  time,  are  precise  as  to 
the  fact  of  creation. 

9.  Meaning  of  the  phrase  "  The  heavens 

and  the  earth." 

10.  Gen.  i.  2.  The  state  of  the  earth  be- 

fore the  six  days'  work. 

11.  Verse  8  compared  with  verses  14-19 

—Light  and  the  earth  before  the 
sun — Theory  of  La  Place. 

12.  Meaning  of  the  word  "day." 

13.  The  six  days  not  the  six  Geological 

periods. 

14.  Supposed  immobility  of  the  earth. 

15.  The  Mosaic  firmament  an  expanse,  not 

a  solid  vault. 

16.  Creation  of  one  human  pair — State- 

ment in  '  Essays  and  Eeviews'  that 
the  original  formation  of  only  one 
pair  of  human  beings  is  taught  only 
in  the  2nd  chapter,  and  not  in  the 
1st. 

17.  Conclusion. 


THE  MOSAIC  RECORD  OE  CREATION. 


1.  Almost  all  ancient  nations  liave  traditions  re- 
specting the  origin  of  the  nniverse.  These  traditions 
difler  in  detail  and  representation  according  to  the 
genius  of  the  people  by  whom  they  have  been  pre- 
served, but  they  retain  a  family  likeness,  and  certain 
points  of  contact  with  each  other  and  the  Mosaic  cos- 
mogony, with  which  some  exhibit  a  striking  resem- 
blance. Thus  the  Etruscans  relate  that  God  created 
the  world  in  six  thousand  years.  In  the  first  thousand 
He  created  the  heaven  and  the  earth ;  in  the  second 
the  firmament;  in  the  third  the  sea  and  the  other 
waters  of  the  earth ;  in  the  fourth  sun,  moon,  and  stars ; 
in  the  fifth  the  animals  belonging  to  air,  water,  and 
land ;  in  the  sixth  man  alone. ^  The  Persian  tradition 
also  recognizes  the  six  periods  of  creation,  assigning  to 
the  first  the  heavens  ;  to  the  second  the  waters ;  to  tlie 
third  the  earth ;  to  the  fourth  trees  and  plants ;  to  the 
fifth  animals ;  to  the  sixth  man.f  Others  mention  the 
darkness,  the  chaotic  mass  of  waters,  the  Spirit  of  God  ; 
so  that  even  in  the  judgment  of  modern  critics,  there 
must  have  been  "  a  primitive,  cosmogonical  myth,  uni- 
versally pervading  antiquity."  :j:  How  and  when  that 
universal  myth  arose,  modern  criticism  does  not  say ; 
and  yet  it  is  a  striking  fact  that  there  should  l)e  such  a 
tradition,  and  that  amidst  the  variety  of  modifications  the 
original  identity  should  still  be  perceptible.  Christian 
apologists  have  found  in  the  resemblances  a  presump- 
tion of  its  being  derived  from  the  original  revelation, 
and  in  the  consent  of  the  various  human  families,  com- 

*  Suidas  in  roc.  Tvpprjvia. 

+  Zend  Avosta,  Kleukor.  p.  10;  Auquctil  du  Perron,  torn.  ii.  34.3;  Bur- 
nouf,  Ya^;na,  toni.  i.  p.  2'J7.  ^ 

X  Knobcl  on  Genesis,  p.  6. 


220  -^I^S  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  V. 

Lined  with  the  manifest  snpenority  and  historic  char- 
acter of  the  account  in  Genesis,  a  proof  of  the  Divine 
origin  of  the  Mosaic  Record,  and  of  the  unity  of  the 
human  race.*  Modern  theology,  on  the  contrary, 
teaches  that  the  Mosaic  cosmogony  is  only  the  Hebrew 
form  of  the  original  myth,  bearing  the  palm  indeed  on 
account  "  of  its  simplicity,  dignity,  and  sublimity,"  but 
still  unhistoric  in  its  relation,  and  inconsistent  with  the 
results  of  modern  criticism  and  science. 

To  discuss  all  the  details  of  criticism  would  require 
volumes.  But  one  alleged  result,  often  stated  in  an  off- 
hand, popular  w^ay,  asserted  with  unhesitating  confi- 
dence, and  repeated  as  absolutely  certain,  requires 
notice.  It  is  said  that  in  the  Book  of  Genesis  there 
are  some  portions  in  which  God  is  spoken  of  exclusive- 
ly as  Elohim — in  others  exclusively  as  Jehovah  [the 
LoKD  in  the  Authorized  Version] .  This  exclusive  use 
of  the  one  Divine  name  in  some  portions,  and  of  the 
other  in  other  portions,  it  is  said,  characterizes  two  dif- 
ferent authors,  living  at  different  times,  and  conse- 
quently Genesis  is  composed  of  two  diiferent  docu- 
ments, the  one  Elohistic,  the  other  Jehovistic,  which 
moreover  differ  in  statement,  and  consequently  that 
this  book  was  not  written  by  Moses,  and  is  neither  in- 
spired nor  trustworthy.  Now,  not  to  notice  the  defec- 
tiveness of  this  statement  as  to  the  names  of  God, 
who  in  Genesis  is  also  called  El,  El  Elyon,  Most  High 
God ;  El  Shaddai,  God  Almighty ;  Adonai,  Lord ;  nor 
the  fact  that  in  other  books,  as  Jonah  and  the  Psalms,  the 
same  exclusiveness  is  found ;  let  ns  look  at  this  state- 
ment as  a  supposed  result  of  criticism.  It  is  generally 
urged  as  if  on  this  point  critics  were  all  of  one  mind, 
agreed  in  the  portions  which  are  Elohistic  or  Jehovistic 
— unanimous  as  to  the  characteristic  differences  of  style 
in  the  separate  portions,  in  fact  as  if  the  theory  came 
with  the  authority  of  universal  consent.  Were  this 
the  case,  it  would  necessarily  carry  with  it  great 
w^eight.     For,  though  the  conclusions  of  criticism  dif- 

*  Grotius  *  de  Veritate,'  who  lias  given  an  ample  collection  of  ancient  tes- 
timonies, lib.  i.  §  xvi.    Faber,  'Horie  Mosaicae,  vol.  i.  pp.  17-40. 


Essay  Y.]  THE  MOSAIC  EECOKD   OF   CKEATION.  o21 

fer  from  the  demonstrations  of  pure  science  and  the  in- 
ferences of  induction,  yet,  when  unanimously  adopted 
by  those  competent  to  judge,  they  deservedly  influence 
the  minds  of  all  reasonable  persons.  But  this  is  not 
the  case  in  the  present  theory.  The  popular  statement 
given  above  does  not  represent  the  true  state  of  the 
case.  The  fact  is,  that  there  is  here  the  greatest  vari- 
ety of  opinion,  and  the  modifications  of  the  above  ap- 
j^arently  simple  theory  are  so  widely  divergent,  as 
either  to  shake  the  value  of  the  criticism,  or  throw  a 
dark  shade  of  doubt  on  the  competence  of  the  critics. 
In  the  first  place,  there  is  a  difference  as  to  the  extent 
to  which  the  theory  is  to  be  applied.  Some  confine  it 
to  the  Book  of  Genesis ;  others  include  Exodus  to 
chapter  vi. ;  others,  as  Knobel,  Bleek,  and  Ewald,  as- 
sert that  the  Jehovistic  and  Elohistic  differences  can  be 
recognized  through  the  whole  Pentateuch  to  the  end  of 
Joshua.  Some,  as  J.  D.  Michaelis,  Jahn,  Yater,  Ilart- 
mann,  regard  Genesis  as  a  loose  and  unsystematic 
stringing  together  of  disjointed  fragments.  2.  But 
passing  these  by,  let  us  look  at  the  state  of  the  Elohistic 
and  Jehovistic  theory,  as  stated  by  Bleek  in  his  Intro- 
duction. 

i.  In  the  year  1753,  Astruc,  a  French  physician, 
taught  that  the  Book  of  Genesis  is  made  up  of  twelve 
memoirs  or  documents,  of  which  the  two  principal  are 
the  Elohistic  and  the  Jehovistic.  From  these  Moses 
composed  the  book,  which  he  wrote  in  twelve  columns. 
Copyists  mixed  these  together,  and  hence  the  present 
form  of  Genesis. 

ii.  Eichhorn  asserted  that  the  present  Book  of  Gen- 
esis is  based  upon  two  pre-Mosaic  documents,  distin- 
guished by  Eloliim  and  Jehovah,  and  that  the  author, 
in  relating  any  event,  selected  that  document  in  which 
the  fullest  account  was  contained.  Sometimes  the 
accounts  are  mixed  together.  Some  other  documents 
were  consulted. 

iii.  Ilgen  supposes  seventeen  documents,  but  only 
three  authors,  one  Jehovist,  two  Elohists,  and  is  so 
acute  in  his  scent  as  sometimes  to  divide  even  single 
verses  between  the  three,  and  give  to  each  his  own. 


222  -^I^y  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  V. 

iv.  De  Wette's  theory,  in  the  first  edition  of  liis  In- 
troduction, is,  that  a  continuous  Elohistic  document 
pervades  and  forms  the  basis  of  the  whole  book,  and 
extends  to  Exod.  vi.  In  this  the  autlior  inserted  what 
he  found  in  one,  or,  probably,  in  several  Jehovistic 
documents. 

V.  Yon  Bohlen  believes  in  the  same  Elohistic  basis, 
but  denies  the  existence  of  Jehovistic  documents.  The 
.author  of  the  book  in  its  present  state  is  the  Jehovist, 
so  that  only  two  persons  are  concerned. 

vi.  Gramberg  makes  three  authors — the  Elohist,  the 
Jehovist,  and  the  compiler,  who  does  not  scruple  some- 
times to  substitute  one  Divine  name  for  the  other. 

vii.  Ewald  exhibits  a  variety  of  opinions :  first,  he 
began  by  holding  the  unity  of  Genesis,  and  proving  it 
against  both  the  document  and  the  fragment  hypothesis. 
His  arguments  have  not  yet  been  refuted,  either  by 
himself  or  others.  Secondly,  about  ten  years  after- 
wards he  taught  that  the  basis  of  the  Book  of  Genesis 
is  an  ancient  writing,  of  which  considerable  remains 
are  found  in  the  whole  Pentateuch,  and  which  is  dis- 
tinguished by  peculiarity  of  language,  especially  by  the 
use  of  Elohim  up  to  Exod.  vi.  2.  This  author  had  in- 
corporated into  his  book  more  ancient  documents,  as 
the  Decalogue  and  Exod.  xxi.-xxiii.  At  a  subsequent 
period  arose  another  work  on  the  ancient  history,  which 
ascribed  the  use  of  Jehovah  to  patriarchal  times.  From 
this  later  work  portions  were  inserted  into  the  former 
by  the  author  of  the  present  Book  of  Genesis,  so  that 
here  there  are  at  the  least  four  Avriters  concerned. 
Thirdl}^,  Ewald  extended  and  modified  this  theory  by 
supposing  more  than  two  treatments  of  i\\Q  ancient  his- 
tory forming  the  contents  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  the 
Book  of  Joshua,  lie  ascribes  Genesis  in  its  present 
form  to  that  writer,  whom  in  liis  first  edition  he  calls 
the  fourth  narrator,  and  in  his  second  edition  the  fifth 
narrator  of  the  primitive  histories,  who  lived  in  the 
time  of  Jotham.  This  work  had  several  predecessors ; 
according  to  the  first  edition,  three ;  according  to  the 
second,  six.     Three  of  these  are  Elohistic. 


Essay  v.]  THE  MOSAIC  EECOKD  OF  CREATION.  £23 

viii.  Iliipfeldt  takes  as  the  basis  of  our  Genesis 
three  independent  historic  works ;  two  Elohistic,  one 
Jehovistic,  and  makes  in  addition  a  compiler. 

ix.  Knobel  believes  in  two  documents :  lirst,  the 
Elohistic,  forming  the  basis  of  the  Pentateuch  and  of 
Joshua ;  second,  the  Jehovistic,  which  again  has  two 
previous  sources.  There  are,  besides,  free  Jehovistic 
developments,  in  which  the  compiler  sometimes  fol- 
lowed hints  in  the  two  documents,  sometimes  popular 
tradition,  and  sometimes  his  own  conceptions. 

3.  This  enumeration  is  far  from  exhausting  the  va- 
rieties, but  is  sufficient  to  show  the  want  of  unity.  The 
reader  will  perceive  that  some  assert  one  Elohistic  doc-, 
ument — others,  two — others,  three.  In  like  manner 
some  make  one  Jehovist ;  some  more.  Some  make  the 
Jehovist  identical  with  the  compiler ;  others  make  him 
a  different  person.  Some  make  two,  others  three,  others 
four,  Ewald  seven  documents  by  different  authors  the 
materials  of  Genesis.  Now  every  one  can  understand 
that  there  is  a  great  difference  whether  the  Elohistic 
and  Jehovistic  portions  be  assigned  to  one  or  be  divided 
amongst  two,  three,  or  more  persons.  He  who  says 
that  there  is  only  one  Elohist  must  believe  that  in  the 
whole  Elohistic  portion  there  is  unity  of  style,  tone,  spirit, 
language.  If  there  be  two  Elohists,  then  the  former 
is  mistaken  as  to  the  unity,  and  there  must  be  two 
diversities  of  style ;  but  if  there  be  three  Elohists, 
then  both  first  and  second  critics  are  mistaken,  and 
there  must  be  three  different  styles.  The  portions 
assigned  to  each  must  also  be  smaller.  Let  the  three 
Elohists  be  A,  B,  C.  The  first  critic  sa3^s  that  the 
whole  belongs  to  A.  Tlie  second  critic  says,  No  ;  part 
belongs  to  B.  The  third  critic  says  part  belongs  to  A, 
part  to  B,  and  part  to  C.  And  thus  the  most  cele- 
brated critics  convict  each  other  of  false  criticism. 
Iliipfeldt  condemns  Knobel ;  Ewald  condemns  Iliip- 
feldt and  Knobel ;  Knobel  condemns  Ewald  and  Iliip- 
feldt. If  Knobel's  criticism  is  correct,  Hupfeldt's  is 
worthless.  If  Ewald  be  right,  the  others  must  be  de- 
ficient in  critical  acumen.  They  may  all  be  wrong,  but 
only  one  of  the  three  can  be  right. 


224  -^^^9  TO  Faith.  [Ebsatv/ 

But  take  into  account  all  the  other  differences  enu- 
merated above,  one  supposing  that  the  documents  are 
pre-Mosaic,  another  that  they  were  written  in  the  times 
of  Joshua  or  the  Judges,  another  in  the  time  of  David, 
another  some  centuries  later ;  and  how  uncertain  must 
the  principles  of  their  criticism  appear, — how  valueless 
their  conclusions  !  With  such  facts  can  any  sane  per- 
son talk  of  the  results  of  modern  criticism  as  regards 
the  Book  of  Genesis  ?  or  be  willing  to  give  np  the  be- 
lief of  centuries  for  such  criticism  as  this? 

It  is  self-evident  that  criticism  leading  to  such  in- 
consistent conclusions  must  be  in  a  high  degree  imagi- 
native :  a  little  examination  shows  that  it  is  also  unrea- 
sonably arbitrary.  In  order  to  make  out  the  theory 
that  there  are  two  authors,  one  of  whom  is  known  by 
the  exclusive  use  of  Elohim,  and  the  other  by  the 
exclusive  use  of  Jeliovah,  and  that  the  former  is  more 
ancient  than  the  latter,  it  is  necessary  to  point  out 
paragraphs  in  which  those  Divine  names  are  exclusive- 
ly used,  and  also  to  prove  that  the  Elohist  does  not 
refer  to  the  Jehovistic  document ;  for  if  the  Elohist 
plainly  refers  to  what  the  Jehovist  has  related,  the 
latter  cannot  be  posterior  to  the  former,  and  the  theory 
fails.  ISTow,  unhappily  for  the  theory,  the  word  Jeho- 
vah does  occur  in  the  Elohistic  passages,  and  the  Elo- 
hist does  refer  to  the  Jehovistic  narrative.  Thus  in 
Genesis  ii.  4,  the  two  names  occur  together.  "These 
are  the  generations  of  the  heavens  and  the  earth  when 
they  were  created,  in  the  day  when  Jehovah  Elohim 
made  the  earth  and  the  heavens."  Now  if  this  verse 
belongs  to  what  precedes,  then  the  following  narrative, 
which  has  also  the  unusual  union  of  the  two  names, 
was  written  by  the  Elohist,  and  the  first  three  chapters 
are  by  one  author.  If  it  be  written  by  the  Jehovist, 
how  comes  it  to  have  Elohim  as  well,  and  why  docs  it 
differ  both  from  Elohist  and  Jehovist  documents  by 
the  union  of  the  names  ?  Here  is  a  difficulty  which 
has  divided  all  Germany,  and  arrayed  Rationalist 
against  Rationalist,  and  Orthodox  against  Orthodox, 
and  for  which  there  seems  no  hope  of  solution,  unless 


Essay  v.]  THE  MOSAIC  llECOKD  OF   CREATION.  225 

violence  be  offered  to  the  text,  and  men  be  persuaded, 
against  tlie  evidence  of  manuscripts  and  ancient  ver- 
sions, that  tlie  words  "  These  are  the  generations  of  the 
heavens  and  the  earth  "  stood  originally  as  the  heading 
before  the  first  verse  of  the  first  chapter,  and  that  the 
word  Eloliim  in  ii.  4  is  an  interpolation  of  the  Jelio- 
vist.  Take  another  example  : — Genesis  v.  is  said  to  be 
Elohistic,  and  it  is  certain  that  Elohim^  God,  occurs 
five  times ;  but  in  verse  29  appears  the  word  Jehovah 
to  disturb  the  theorist ;  and  not  only  is  this  word  there, 
but  the  verse  refers  to  the  Jehovistic  chapter  iii.  17. 
AVhat  is  to  be  done  ?  The  verse  stands  in  all  the  man- 
-ascripts  and  ancient  versions.  But,  if  the  Elohistic 
theory  is  to  stand,  it  must  be  got  rid  of  somehow.  It 
is  an  interpolation,  says  the  theorist ;  it  was  put  in  by 
the  compiler.  In  like  manner  the  theorists  cut  off 
chapter  vii.  9 — 2-^  from  its  context,  and  sa.y.  It  is 
Elohistic.  But  lo !  in  verse  16  stands  "  Jehovah." 
The  same  canon  of  the  old  Socinian  criticism  is  again 
applied  ;  the  unwelcome  word  is  an  interpolation.  One 
instance  more.  The  xlixth  chapter  is  said  to  belong  to 
a  long  Elohistic  portion.  But  in  the  18th  verse  occur 
those  w^ords  of  Jacob,  "  I  have  w^aited  for  thy  salva- 
tion, O  Jehovah."  Again  the  same  violence  is  re- 
peated. The  disturbing  verse  is  an  interpolation.  Is 
this  criticism?  Is  it  a  fair  and  legitimate  proceeding 
to  alter  the  text,  and  that  not  once,  but  frequently,  in 
order  to  make  it  suit  one's  theory  ?  To  discard  the 
consent  of  manuscripts,  ancient  versions,  all  printed 
editions,  and  cry  out,  Interpolation,  interpolation,  with- 
out any  authority  at  all  ?  There  is  no  more  certain 
sign  of  helpless  prejudice  or  critical  incompetence, 
than  to  have  frequent  recourse  to  violent  and  unau- 
thorized alteration  of  the  text ;  and  yet  without  this 
the  theory  of  the  Elohistic  and  Jehovistic  documents, 
even  if  it  were  imanimously  received  by  modern  critics, 
could  not  be  made  out.  Arbitrary  separations  of  what 
evidently  belongs  together,  and  unwarranted  assertions 
of  interpolation,  prove  its  unsoundness.  The  variety 
of  its  modifications,  one  neutralizing  the  other,  as  has 
10* 


226  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  V. 

been  sliown  above,  demonstrates  the  uncertainty  and 
untrnstworthiness  of  the  results. 

4.  But  the  theory  rests  upon  an  assumption  totally 
false,  that  the  names  Elohiin  and  Jehovah  are  synony- 
mous, and  that  they  can  be  used  indifferently,  one  for 
the  other.  The  names  are  not  synonymous,  and  cannot 
be  so  used.  There  is  the  same  difference  between 
Eloliim  and  Jehovah,  as  between  Deus  and  Jupiter^ 
or  homo  and  Petriis.  The  one  expresses  the  genus,  the 
other  stands  for  the  individual,  and  is  a  proper  name. 
Elohim  answers  to  our  own  word  God  or  Deity ^  and  is, 
therefore,  used  of  false  Gods  as  well  as  of  the  true. 
Jehovah  stands  for  the  personal,  living,  self-revealing 
Being,  and  is  explained  in  those  two  passages,  Exod. 
ill.  14,  '\1  am  that  I  am  ;"  and  xxxiv.  6,  when,  the 
Lord  having  said,  "  I  will  proclaim  my  name  before 
thee,"  proclaimed  "  Jehovah,  Jehovah,  God  [El]  mer- 
ciful and  gracious,  long-suffering  and  abundant  in 
goodness  and  truth  ; "  and  can  therefore  be  applied  to 
none  but  the  one  true  and  eternal  God,  as  is  said,  "  I 
am  Jehovah  ;  that  is  my  name,  and  my  glory  will 
I  not  give  to  another."  This  distinction  is  strongly 
marked  in  the  words  of  Elijah,  "If  Jehovah  be  Eloliim, 
follow  Ilim  ;  if  Baal,  then  follow  him."  Here  it  would 
be  impossible  to  interchange  Elohim  and  Jehovah,  or 
to  say,  "  if  Baal  be  Jehovah."  There  is  an  essential 
difierence  in  signification,  and,  though  Jehovah  is  the 
true  God,  and  the  true  God  Jehovah,  and  therefore 
sometimes  either  might  be  used,  yet,  in  consequence 
of  the  essential  difference,  there  are  cases  where  there 
is  a  peculiar  propriety  in  using  one  rather  than  the 
other ;  and  there  are  other  cases  in  which  one  must  be 
used,  and  the  other  cannot.  As  Jehovah  is  the  proper 
name  of  God,  it  does  not  take  a  genitive  case  or  a 
suffix.  It  is,  therefore,  impossible  to  say  in  Hebrew, 
"the  Jehovah  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,"  or  "My, 
thy,  our  Jehovah."  In  such  cases,  Elohim  must  be 
used,  as  "  The  Elohim,  God  of  Abraham,"  iScQ.  "My 
Elohim,  my  God,  our  Elohim,  our  God,"  6zc.  Again, 
as  Jchovali  signifies  the  self-revealing,  that  word  can- 


£ssAT  v.]  THE  MOSAIC  KECOED  OF  CEEATION.  227 

not  occur  in  the  mouth  of  those  to  whom  lie  has  not 
revealed  himself,  nor,  ordinarily,  in  the  mouth  of 
Hebrews  speaking  to  such  ;  and,  therefore,  when  Moses 
and  Aaron  use  it  to  Pharaoh,  they  add  "  the  God  of 
Israel  "  to  make  it  intelligible.  But  still  Pharaoh  asks, 
"  Who  is  Jehovah  ?  I  know  not  Jehovah  ;  '^  and  they 
explain,  "The  Elohim,  God  of  the  Hebrews  hath  met 
with  us."  There  is  no  room  here  to  go  through  and 
illustrate  all  the  peculiarities  of  these  Divine  names. 
But  what  has  been  said  is  sufficient  to  show  that  the 
exclusive  use  of  Elohim  cannot  be  received  as  a  char 
acteristic  mark  to  distinguish  one  author  from  the  other, 
inasmuch  as,  in  the  cases  above  enumerated  and  others, 
the  use  of  Elohim  is  compulsory  ;  and  neither  Moses, 
nor  Samuel,  nor  Isaiah,  could  in  these  cases  leave  out 
Elohim,  and  substitute  Jehovah.  Thus,  in  Gen.  xl.  8, 
the  word  Elohim  occurs  once,  w^hen  Joseph  says  to  the 
Egyptian  prisoners,  ''  Do  not  interpretations  belong  to 
God,  Elohim  f "  Here  JeJiovah  could  not  be  used. 
Again,  in  xli.,  the  word  Elohim  occurs  eight  times.  In 
six  of  them  the  use  was  compulsory.  In  xliii.  23  it 
occurs  twice  with  suffixes  or  genitive,  and  no  other 
word  could  be  used,  and  so  in  other  instances.'''^  And, 
therefore,  the  use  of  the  word  cannot  be  the  character- 
istic peculiarity  of  one  author.  In  the  first  chapter  of 
Genesis,  Moses  might  have  used  either  Elohim  or  Jeho- 
vah, except  in  the  2Ttli  verse,  where  Elohim  was  com^ 
pulsor3^  But  in  the  opening  of  the  Divine  teaching, 
it  was  necessary  to  make  clear  that  God  is  Creator, 
that  the  world  was  not  eternal,  nor  independent ;  and 
also  that  Jehovah  is  not  one  among  many — not  the 
national  God  of  the  Hebrews— but  that  Jehovah  the 
Self-revealer,  and  Elohim  the  Almighty  Creator,  are 
one.  Therefore,  in  the  first  chapter,  Elohim  is  used 
throughout.  The  Deity  is  the  Creator.  But  in  ap- 
])roaching  that  part  of  the  narrative  where  the  j^crsonal 
God  enters  into  relations  with  man,  and  where  Jehovah 

*  Ewald  in  his  *  Coinposition  dcr  Genesis,'  and  Ilcnejslcnbcrj;  in  his 
'Authentic  dos  Pcntatcuchs,'  vol.  i.  pp.  300-'',ltl,  have  examined  all  the  in- 
stances where  the  names  occur,  and  explained  the  propriety  or  the  necessity. 


228  ^^^^  ^^  FAITH.  [Essay  V. 

was  necessary,  Moses  unites  the  names,  and  says,  "  Je- 
hovah Elohini,  the  Lokd  God."  Had  he  suddenly  used 
Jehovah  alone,  there  might  hav^e  been  a  doubt  as  to 
whether  Jehovah  was  not  different  from  Elohim.  The 
union  of  the  two  names  proves  identity,  and  this  being 
proved,  from  the  fourth  chapter  on,  Moses  drops  this 
union  and  sometimes  employs  Jehovah,  sometimes  Elo- 
him, as  occasion,  propriety,  and  the  laws  of  the  Hebrew 
language  require.  The  use  of  these  names,  therefore, 
can  prove  nothing  against  the  unity  of  the  narrative. 

5.  But,  in  truth,  independently  of  all  philological 
criticism,  the  unity  of  the  first  two  chapters  of  Genesis 
may  be  proved  by  comparing  one  with  the  other.  They 
do  not  contain  two  distinct  accounts  of  "  the  Creation." 

The  second  chapter  does  not  narrate  the  creation  of 
heaven  or  earth,  or  light,  firmament,  sun,  moon,  or 
stars,  sea,  or  dry  land, "fish,  or  creeping  things.  The 
second  chapter,  therefore,  is  so  far  from  being  a  cos- 
mogony, that  it  is  not  even  a  geogony,  and,  therefore,  the 
fourth  verse  of  the  second  chapter,  "  These  are  the 
generations  of  the  heavens  and  the  earth  when  they 
were  created,  in  the  day  that  the  Lord  God  (Jehova'h 
Elohim)  made  the  earth  and  the  heavens,"  cannot  be 
the  title  or  summary  of  what  follows,  but  are  an  exact 
recapitulation  of  what  is  narrated  in  the  first  chapter. 
They  mention  first  the  creation  of  "  the  heavens  and 
the  earth;"  second,  the  making  of  "  the  earth  and  heav- 
ens "  in  the  very  order  in  which  the  process  of  creation 
is  related  in  that  chapter,  but  of  which  not  one  word  is 
said  in  what  follows.  The  second  chapter  is  obviously 
not  an  account  ''  of  the  creation,"  but  of  the  particu- 
lars of  the  formation  of  man,  and  his  early  history. 
Ewald  said  long  ago,  "  The  aim  of  the  first  connected 
narrative  (ch.  i.  1 — ii.  3)  is  to  exhibit  God  as  the  Crea- 
tor of  the  universe.  .  .  The  author  then  passes  over 
from  the  perfected  picture  of  the  created  universe,  to 
that  which  must  have  been  to  him,  as  to  all  writers  of 
history,  the  most  worthy  of  note,  to  the  history  of  man. 
Yet  he  closes  the  first  picture  with  the  words  (ii.  4), 
'  These  are  the  generations  of  the  heavens  and  of  the 


Essay  v.]  THE  MOSAIC   EECOED  OF   CEEATION.  229 

eartli.' ''  "^  The  second  chapter  is,  therefore,  an  integral 
part  of  a  rehation  contained  in  the  three  first  chapters, 
connected  with  the  chapter  by  verse  four,  and  prepar- 
ii]p^  for  the  account  of  the  Fall  by  telling  us  beforehand 
of  Paradise,  of  the  tree  of  knowledge,  the  prohibition 
to  eat  of  it,  and  of  the  formation  of  the  woman.  Indeed, 
most  recent  writers  admit,  that  whether  there  be  differ- 
ent sources  or  not,  the  autlior  has  formed  them  into  one 
narrative ;  there  cannot,  therefore,  be  contradiction. 
There  are  ditierences  to  be  explained  by  the  difierent 
objects  which  the  author  had  in  view.  In  the  first,  his 
object  was  to  give  an  outline  of  the  history  of  the  uni- 
verse ;  in  the  second,  to  relate  the  origin  and  primitive 
history  of  man,  so  far  as  it  was  necessary,  as  a  prepara- 
tion for  the  history  of  the  Fall.  In  the  former,  there- 
fore, all  the  steps  of  creation  are  treated  in  chronological 
order.  In  the  latter,  only  so  much  is  alluded  to  as  is 
necessary  for  the  author's  i^urpose,  and  in  the  order 
which  that  purpose  required. 

6.  So  much  for  modern  criticism.  But  the  new 
theology  also  asserts  that  the  Mosaic  cosmogony  is 
contradicted  by  the  discoveries  and  progress  of  science, 
and  that,  therefore,  Moses  could  not  have  been  inspired. 
This  is  a  straightforward  objection,  deserves  a  fair  and 
full  consideration,  and  ought  not  to  be  met  with  what 
objectors  can  only  regard  as  evasions.  Such  are  the 
assertions,  that  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  is  poetry,  or 
a  series  of  seven  prophetic  visions,  f  or  the  mere  cloth- 
ing of  a  theological  truth.  To  urge  such  suppositions 
is  not  to  defend  the  ark  of  God,  but  to  abandon  it  to 
the  enemy.  If  tlie  first  chapter  of  Genesis  be  .poetry, 
or  vision,  or  parable,  it  is  not  historic  truth,  which  is 
just  what  objectors  assert.  There  are  in  this  chapter 
none  of  the  peculiarities  of  Hebrew  poetry.  The  style 
is  full  of  dignity,  but  it  is  that  of  prose  narrative.  There 
is  no  mention  of  prophetic  vision,  no  prophetic  formula 
employed.     It  is  not  said,  "The  vision  which  Moses 

*  '  Composition  dor  Genesis,'  pp.  102, 193.  To  this  division  Ewald  adheres, 
as  appears  from  his  Essays  ou  the  subject  in  his  '  Jahrbuch'  for  IblS,  p.  77, 
and  1S49,  p.  132. 

t  So  Kurz,  and  after  him,  Hugh  Hiller. 


230  -^II^S  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  V. 

saw,"  nor  "  I  lifted  up  my  eyes,  and  behold."  The 
propliet  or  historian  is  kept  entirely  out  of  sight,  and 
the  narrative  begins  at  once  without  any  preface,  "  In 
the  beginning  God  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth," 
and  then  goes  to  the  account  of  Paradise,  the  birth  of 
Cain  and  AbeJ,  &c.,  without  any  break  or  note  of  tran- 
sition from  vision  to  history.  The  Book  of  Genesis  is 
history.  It  is  the  historical  introduction  to  the  four 
following  books  of  the  Pentateuch,  or  rather,  to  all  fol- 
lowing revelation,  and  the  first  chapter,  as  the  insepa- 
rable JDeginning  of  the  whole,  must  be  historical  also. 
When  the  Lord  recapitulates  its  contents  in  the  Fourth 
Commandment,  and  makes  it  the  basis  of  the  ordinance 
of  the  Sabbath,  He  stamps  it  as  real  history.  To  sup- 
pose a  moral,  or  even  a  ceremonial  command,  based 
upon  a  poetic  picture,  or  a  vision,  or  an  ideal  narrative, 
would  be  absurd.  The  Lord  also  treats  "  the  first  chap- 
ters of  Genesis"  as  real  and  authoritative  history,  when 
Lie  makes  Gen.  i.  27,  and  ii.  23,  24,  the  foundation  of 
His  doctrine  concerning  marriage  and  divorce.  As 
history,  therefore,  they  must  be  received,  whatever 
difficulties  that  reception  may  involve.  Some,  indeed, 
hold  that  in  reading  the  Bible,  a  distinction  is  to  be 
made  between  statements  relating  to  religion,  and  those 
relating  to  physics,  that  the  former  are  to  be  received, 
and  the  latter  disregarded,  as  "  The  purpose  of  revela- 
tion is  to  teach  man  what  he  cannot  find  out  by  his 
unassisted  reason,  but  not  physical  truths,  for  the  dis- 
covery of  which  he  has  fticulties."  But,  what  are  we 
to  do  when  a  truth  is  both  religious  and  physical,  such 
as  "  God  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth  "  ?  And 
how  are  we  to  distinguish  between  what  can  be  and 
what  cannot  be  discovered  by  man's  natural  faculties? 
On  iha  one  hand,  the  leading  intellects  of  Germany  are 
still  disputing  about  the  eternity  of  the  universe,  and 
the  relation  of  the  finite  to  the  absolute  ;♦  and  on  the 
other,  Deists  and  Theists,  and  Rationalists,  teach  that 
all  religious  and  moral  truth  can  be  discovered,  and 
has  been  discovered,  by  man's  natural  powers — can  be 
known  in  no  other  way,  and  that,  therefore,  revelation 


Essay  v.]  THE  MOSAIC  liECOKD  OF  CllEATION.  231 

is  uiinecessaiy.  Besides,  if  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis 
be  not  given  to  teach  lis  the  facts  and  order  of  creation, 
wliy  is  it  there  at  all  in  all  its  circumstantialitj?  Are 
we  to  believe  that  Divine  revelation  begins  with  an 
unscientific  misstatement  of  physical  truth  ?  If  the  first 
chapter  be  the  ofispring  of  human  error,  where  does 
Divine  truth  begin  ?  This  principle  raises  many  new 
ditficulties,  and  removes  none.  "VVe,  therefore,  adhere 
to  the  plain  grammatical  statement,  as  a  Divine  revela- 
tion of  the  origin  of  the  universe,  not  yet  superseded  by 
the  theories  of  tlie  speculative  philosophy,  nor  anti- 
quated by  the  discoveries  of  modern  science. 

7.  The  first  supposed  difficulty  in  the  Mosaic  state- 
ment is  the  age  of  the  world.  According  to  the  teach- 
ings of  Geology  and  Astronomy,  the  existence  of  the 
heavens  and  the  earth  is  to  be  reckoned  by  myriads  of 
thousands  of  years.  According  to  Moses,  it  is  alleged, 
they  are  of  yesterday.  To  know  whether  this  difficulty 
is  real,  it  is  first  necessary  to  know  Avhat  Moses  has 
actually  said.  And  here  it  is  not  intended  to  propose 
anything  new,  but  to  revert  to  the  ancient  exposition 
of  the  phrase,  "  In  the  beginning,"  for  upon  this  the 
question  really  turns.  The  first  proposition  is  "  In  the 
beginning  God  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth,"  and 
here  it  is  necessary  to  observe  that  Reshith^  tlie  He- 
brew word  for  "  beginning,"  is  in  the  original  without 
the  definite  article.  Moses  says,  "  In  Eeshith  [not  in 
the  Resliith\  Eloliim  created  the  heavens  and  the 
earth."  The  antiquity  and  correctness  of  this  reading 
are  proved  by  the  Septuagint,  Chaldee,  and  Syriac 
versions. 

LXX.  'Ez^  «PX5^  Chaldee  T-'ipa,  Syriac  h  4^*^^)^ 
and  so  it  is  also  found  in  the  Evangelist's  allusion,  John 
i.  1.  Tlie  uniformity  of  the  reading,  and  the  care  witli 
which  it  had  been  preserved  for  centuries — notwith- 
standing the  natural  temptation  to  sup])ly  tlie  article — 
testify  that  there  was  an  uniform  traditional  meaning 
attached  to  it,  different  from  that  possible,  if  the  word 
had  the  article.  What  this  meaning  is,  is  plainly  seen 
in  the  first  verse  of  St.  John's  Gospel.    Kow  that  Socin- 


232  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  V. 

ian  exegesis  is  a  thing  of  tlie  past,  all  divines,  English 
and  foreign,  agree  that  St.  John  here  makes  a  pointed 
reference  to  Gen.  i.  1,  and  that  in  the  words  ev  apyji, 
"  In  the  beginning,"  he  expresses  Duration  or  Tinie^ 
previous  to  Creation.  So  Dean  Alford,  "  'jEz/  o-pyr^  — 
TTpb  Tov  Tov  Koa-fiov  elvai.  "  ''  In  the  beginning "  is 
equivalent  to  "  Before  the  world  was.  "  Tholuck  sajs 
that  the  phrase  expresses  "  Eternity  d  parte  aiite. " 
Meyer  also  takes  it  of  duration  before  time,  and  trans- 
lates it  Yorzeitlichkeit  (pre-temporality),  and  says  that  it 
is  equivalent  to  the  Septuagint  version  of  Prov.  viii. 
23,  "In  the  beginning,  before  he  made  the  earth;" 
and  to  the  words  of  our  Lord  "  Before  the  w^orld  was;  " 
and  of  St.  Paul  "  Before  the  foundation  of  the  world  " 
(Ephes.  i.  4).  De  Wette  has  nearly  the  same  words 
and  the  same  references.  Liicke  also  says  that  the 
phrase  *'  In  the  beginning  "  includes  the  idea  of  pre- 
mundane  existence  {des  Vorioeltlichen)^  and  answers  to 
"  Before  the  world  was  "  (John  xvii.  5).  All  are  agreed 
that  "  Beginning "  refers  to  duration  or  time^  not  to 
order^  and  that  it  is  indefinite  in  its  signification,  and 
may  mean  j^revious  eternity,  or  previous  time,  accord- 
ing to  the  subject  spoken  of.  ^  They  who  believe  that 
St.  John  was  inspired  will  receive  his  interpretation 
of  the  first  words  of  Genesis  as  infallibly  correct,  and 
therefore  interpret  them  there  as  in  the  Gospel.  But 
even  if  St.  John  be  regarded  as  an  ordinary  writer 
asserting  an  important  truth,  his  adoption  of  the  inter- 
pretation proves  that  it  was  known  to  the  Jews  of  his 
time,  and  this  is  further  proved  by  the  nearly  contem- 
porary testimony  of  the  Targum. 

Its  author  Onkelos  gives  the  same  meaning,  and 
proves  that  it  Avas  then  the  received  interpretation. 
For  the  Hebrew  B'reshith  he  gives  B^Jiadmin  ("p^'^P^) 
in  antiquities^  or  former  times.  The  word  ICdam^ 
equivalent  to  the  Hebrew  Kedem^  signifies,  as  Buxtorf 
says,  "  ante^  antiqxiitas,  j)i^^oritas^  lyrincipi'umP  In  the 
plural  number,  as  Onkelos  here  has  it,  it  signifies,  not 

*  Similar  is  the  meaning  of  ilie  words  in  the  Doxologj,  "As  it  was  iu  the 
begiuning,  is  now,  and  ever  shall  be." 


Essay  Y.]  THE  MOSAIC  EECOKD  OF  CREATION.  033 

order,  but  time,  "  ancient  times^  former  times^  eternity P 
For  example  (Gen.  xxviii.  19),  "Luz  was  the  name  of 
tlie  city  "panpS^,  from  antiquities^  oi:  former  timesP 
Again  (Ps.  Ixviii.  33),  "To  liim  that  ricleth  npon  the 
heavens  of  heavens  of  antiquity,"  the  Chaldee  lias 
•j^'a'npbTan,  "  that  were  from  antiquities^  Q)Y  former  times^'' 
which  our  translators  followed,  and  have  rendered, 
"the  heavens  of  heavens  which  were  of  old P  Again 
(Deut.  xxxiii.  27),  "The  Eternal  God  (literally,  the  God 
o^  antiquity  or  priority^  \'^''  Onkelos  has,  "The  God 
who  is  from  antiquities^  "p^^ipb^n."  Here  the  word  is 
applied  to  eternity.-  When,  therefore,  Onkelos  trans- 
lates the  iirst  word  of  Gen.  i.  1,  by  B^kadmiri  in  the 
plural,  and  without  the  article,  he  meant,  in  antiquities, 
informer  times  or  duration,  of  old. 

The  LXX.  nse  eV  apxfl  in  the  same  way,  and  thereby 
prove  that  this  interpretation  was  far  more  ancient  than 
Onkelos.  Thus,  in  Ezek.  xxxvi.  11,  they  employ  ap^fi 
to  render  Kadmali  {former  state),  and  give  as  the 
parallel  eixirpoaOev  for  liisJmh,  nearly  related  to  Besliitli, 
KaroLKLoy  vfxa^  ct)9  to  iv  ap')(^  vficov,  kol  €v  7rQi/](7co  v/jLd<^ 
Ojairep  to,  efjLirpoaOev  vficop. 

Again,  in  Prov.  viii.  23,  they  apply  it  to  express 
duration  antecedent  to  creation.  IIpo  toD  alwvo^ 
idefxeXicoai  fie'  iv  ap')(fj  irpo  tov  ttjv  <yrjv  Troirjaac. 

In  Deut.  xxxiii.  15,  it  signifies  antiquity.  For 
"  ancient  mountains,"  literally  "  mountains  of  antiquity," 
tlic  LXX.  have  aTrb  Kopvcprj^;  opecov  «/3%''i?,  parallel  to 
(3ovvo)v  devdcov.  According,  then,  to  the  LXX.,  "  in 
the  beginning"  means  ^^  in  former  duration^  of  old.'''' 

This  is  also  the  meaning  of  the  Hebrew.  The  word 
llesliitli  having,  according  to  its  form,  an  abstract 
meaning,  and  coming  from  Ilosli  or  Resli,  head,  signi- 
.fies  first  of  all,  as  Gesenius  says,  "  tlie  being  head ; " 
and,  therefore,  applied  to  rank  or  quality,  would  ex- 
press '^  suioeriority''^' — to  order,  '^jpriority,^''  like  its 
synonym  — ^p,  whose  first  meaning  is  'priority — to  time, 
"  anteriority P  To  "  former  time,"  "  state  at  a  former 
time,"  it  refers  in  Job  xlii.  12,  "The  Lord  blessed  the 

*  Compare  Jouathan  on  Micah  v.  2. 


234  -^I^S  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  V. 

latter  end  of  Job  more  than  Lis  beginning,"  where  the 
LXX.  translate  more  exactly,  6  Be  Kvpco^  evKoyrjae  to, 
€a')(aTa  'lo)^  77  ra  efjurpoadev,  and  so  llirzel  has  "r^^nx, 
die  spiitere,  ni'iirxn,  die  friihere  Lebenszeit."  So  in  Jer. 
xxviii.  1,  "in  the  beginning  {ResJdth)  of  the  reign  of 
Zedekiah,"  heginning  does  not  mean  the  first  day,  nor 
the  first  year,  but  the  former  part  of  his  reign,  as  the 
prophet  immediately  adds,  "  in  the  fourth  year."  This 
is  also  the  meaning  in  Isai.  xlvi.  10,  "  declaring  the 
end  from  the  beginning,"  properly,  "  declaring  futurity 
from  former  time,"  as  is  explained  by  the  following 
clause — "  and  from  ancient  times  the  things  which  are 
not  done."  According  then,  to  the  Hebrew,  the  mean- 
ing of  the  first  verse  of  Genesis  is,  "  In  BesJiith  (ante- 
riority), i.e.,  in  former  times,  of  old,  God  created  the 
heavens  and  the  earth ;"  and  the  article  is  omitted 
to  exclude  the  application  of  the  word  to  the  07rler  of 
creation.  This  is  also  the  sense  given  in  other  words 
by  the  Psalmist  (cii.  26).  ''Of  old  (c-^ssrb*  formerly) 
hast  tliou  laid  the  foundation  of  the  earth." 

The  sum,  then,  of  all  that  has  been  said  is,  that  tlie 
words,  "In  the  beginning,"  refer  to  "time  or  duration," 
not  to  order — and  thus,  therefore,  the  first  verse  does 
not  mean,  "At  first  God  created  the  heavens  and  the 
earth,"  nor,  "In  the  beginning  of  creation  he  created 
the  heavens  and  the  earth,"  but  "  Of  old,  in  former  du- 
ration, God  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth."  How 
long  ago  is  not  said.  The  Hebrew  word  is  indefinite, 
and  can  include  millions  or  milliards  of  years  just  as 
easily  as  thousands.  The  statement  of  Moses  is,  there- 
fore, not  contrary  to  the  discoveries  of  geology,  which 
alleges  the  earth  to  have  existed  for  myriads  of  years 
before  the  creation  of  man.  Moses's  words  are  big 
enough  to  take  in  times  indefinite,  exceeding  the  pow- 
ers of  human  compreliension.  They  also  answer  the 
more  ancient  objectors,  who  found  it  absurd  that  God 
created  nothing  in  previous  eternity,  and  had  remained 
inactive  until  a  few  thousand  }•  ears  ago.f     The  words 

*  Compare  Isa.  xli.  26,  wlicro  crt^t:  is  parallel  to  TN^r;. 

t  See  Augustiuc  '  dc  Civit.  Dei,'  Lib.  xi.  4,  5 ;  '  Coufess.'  xi.  10.     Com- 


Essay  v.]  THE  MOSAIC  EECOPwD  OF  CKEATION.  035 

of  Moses,  riglitlj   understood,  say  just  the  contrary. 
They  leave  "  the  when  "  of  creation  undefined.  r 

8.  But  though  thus  comprehensive  as  to  the  time, 
they  are  precise  as  to  the  fact  of  creation.  Moses  says 
"  God  created,"  and  Barci^  the  word  here  used,  is  pe- 
culiar. There  are  three  words  employed  in  the  old 
Testament  in  reference  to  the  production  of  the  world 
— Bard^  he  created ;  Yatzdr^  he  formed ;  Asdli^  he 
made — between  which  tliere  is  this  difference,  that  the 
two  last  may  be,  and  are,  used  of  men.  The  first  word 
Bard  is  never  predicated  of  any  created  being,  angel 
or  man,  but  exclusively  appropriated  to  God,  and  God 
alone  is  called  Bore  fi^'ijis  Creator.  Creation  is  therefore, 
according  to  the  Hebrew,  a  Divine  act — something  that 
can  be  performed  by  God  alone.  In  the  next  place, 
though,  according  to  its  etymology,  it  does  not  necessa- 
rily imply  a  creation  out  of  nothing,  it  does  signify  the 
Divine  production  of  something  new^  something  that 
did  not  exist  before.  See  Numb.  xvi.  30 ;  Jer.  xxxi.  22. 
And  therefore  Gesenius  says,  in  his  '  Thesaurus,'  "  In 
that  common  disputation  of  interpreters  and  theologians 
concerning  the  creation  out  of  nothing,  some  appeal  to 
this  word  [Bara]  as  if  it  could  be  inferred  from  its 
etymology,  or  proper  signification,  that  in  the  first 
chapter  of  Genesis,  not  a  creation  out  of  nothing,  but 
a  conformation  of  eternal  matter  is  taught.  But,  from 
what  has  been  said,  it  will  be  abundantly  plain,  that 
the  use  of  this  verb  in  Kal  is  altogether  different  from 
its  primary  signification,  and  that  it  is  more  used  of 
new  production  (see  Gen.  ii.  3)  than  of  the  conformation 
and  elaboration  of  matter.  But  that  in  the  first  verse 
of  Genesis  the  first  creation  of  the  world  out  of  nothing, 
and  in  a  rude  and  unformed  state,  and  in  the  remainder 
of  the  first  chapter  the  elaboration  and  disposition  of 
the  recently  created  mass  is  set  forth,  is  proved  by  the 
connection  of  things  in  this  whole  chai^tcr.  Thus,  also, 
the  Babbis  (as  may  be  seen  in  Aben  Esra  to  Gen.  i.  1) 
say  that  '  creation  is  a  production  of  something  from 

pare  also  '  Origen  dc  Principiis,'  iii.  5,  and  '  Calvin's  Commentaries  on 
Genesis.' 


236  -^II^S  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  V. 

nothing.'  "  This  is  also  the  explanation  ^iven  in  the 
Psahns.  In  Ps.  cxlviii.  5  we  read,  "  For  lie,  lie  com- 
manded, and  they  were  created."  The  parallel  passage 
(Ps.  xxxiii.  9)  sajs,  "  For  He,  He  said,  and  it  existed 
(^.T'l).  He,  He  commanded,  and  it  stood."  It  is  true 
that  the  how  of  creation,  the  link  between  the  Divine 
will  and  the  realisation,  is  not  made  known.  Perhaps 
to  finite  minds  it  is  incomprehensible.  But,  notwith- 
standing, the  word  creation  is  more  than  a  name  for 
our  ignorance  of  the  mode  of  production.  It  teaches 
that  neither  the  world,  nor  the  matter  of  which  it  is 
composed,  is  eternal  or  self-existent — that  the  universe 
is  not  a  pantheistic  emanation,  but  a  work  of  the  Divine 
will  and  power;  and  this  Mosaic  doctrine,  in  accord- 
ance with  all  sound  reason,  has  not  been  shaken  by 
any  discoveries  or  theories  of  science.  Even  though 
the  nebulous  theory  were  demonstrably  certain;  though 
all  the  starry  hosts  were  mere  agglomerations  of  ele- 
mentary matter,  which  was  once  diffused  like  "  an 
universal  fire-mist"  throughout  all  space,  and  impressed 
with  fixed  laws,  or  endowed  with  self-evolving  powers, 
yet  there  must  be  a  maker  of  that  fire-mist  and  its  fifty- 
five  elementary  substances — there  must  be  a  law-giver, 
who  imposed  those  laws,  or  communicated  those  powers, 
and  who  produced  that  change  of  temperature,  with- 
out which  agglomeration  would  have  been  impossible — 
that  is,  there  must  have  been  a  Creator,  and  therefore 
the  words  of  Moses  would  still  be  true,  "  God  created 
the  heavens  and  the  earth."  "  Sic  philosophi  debuerunt, 
si  forte  eos  primus  aspectus  mundi  conturbaverat,  pos- 
tea  cum  vidissent  motus  ejus  finitos  et  tequabiles,  om- 
niaque  ratis  ordinibus  moderata,  immutabilique  con- 
stantia,  intelligere  inesse  aliquem  non  solum  habitato- 
rem  in  hac  celesti  ac  divina  domo,  sed  etiam  Pectorem 
ct  Moderatorem,  et  tanquam  Architectum  tanti  operis 
tantique  muneris."  '•^' 

0.  In  order  to  understand  the  Mosaic  narrative,  the 
next  thing  to  be  considered  is  the  meaning  of  the 
phrase  "Tiie  heavens  and  the  earth,"  and  the  purpose 
of  the  whole  vei'sc.    Some  take  it  as  a  title  or  summary 

*  *  I)e  Nat.  Dcoruni,'  Lib.  ii.  c.  S5. 


Essay  v.]  TUE  MOSAIC   KECORD   OF   CEEATION.  23'/ 

of  the  contents  of  the  cliapter.  But  tliis  view  is  for- 
bidden by  tlie  conjunction  "and,"  with  whicli  the 
second  vei'se  bci^ins.  "In  tlie  beginning  God  created 
the  lieavens  and  the  earth.  2.  And  the  earth  was  with- 
out form,  and  void."  This  "and"  makes  the  second 
verse  a  continuation  of  the  narrative -begun  in  the  first. 
The  23roposition,  "And  the  earth  was  without  form, 
and  void,"  implies  that  the  earth  was  in  existence,  and 
that  something  had  been  said  of  it  with  wiiich  the 
"and"  is  the  connecting  link.  Besides,  if  the  first 
verse  be  not  a  part  of  the  narrative,  but  only  a  heading, 
the  creation  of  the  earth  is  not  mentioned  at  all  in  the 
narrative  itself.  The  first  verse  is,  therefore,  not  a 
summary,  but  a  part  of  the  history  of  creation. 

Others  suppose  that  the  first  verse  describes  the 
creation  of  the  materials  out  of  which  heaven  and  earth 
were  afterwards  formed.  But  this  is  simply  to  put  into 
the  verse  what  is  not  there.  "  Heaven  and  earth  " 
never  mean  materials,  and  if  they  did,  that  meaning 
would  not  agree  with  the  context.  The  connecting 
"  and  "  of  the  second  verse  shows  that  the  earth  of  the 
second  verse  is  that  earth  spoken  of  in  the  first  verse, 
not  the  materials.  Moses  is  very  precise  and  clear  in 
his  statements,  and  as  he  names  "  the  heavens  and  the 
earth,"  no  expositor  can  legitimately  give  that  phrase 
a  meaning  whicli  it  has  not  in  any  other  place  in  the 
Old  Testament.  The  first  question  then,  here,  is,  what 
Moses  intended  by  "  the  heavens,"  for  the  word  is  plural, 
and  has  no  singular  in  Hebrew.  That  something  difi*er- 
ent  from  the  firmament  is  intended  is  plain  from  the 
order  of  the  narrative.  It  is  not  said,  God  made  the 
earth  and  the  heavens,  but  of  old,  in  former  duration, 
God  made  the  heavens  and  the  earth.  Then  it  is  re- 
lated that  the  earth  was  without  form,  and  void  ;  dark- 
ness was  upon  the  face  of  the  deep  ;  the  Spirit  of  God 
moved  upon  the  face  of  the  waters  ;  God  said.  Let  there 
be  light.  Then,  on  the  second  day,  God  made  the 
firmament,  and  called  it  heavens.  The  lieavens  of  the 
first  verse  were  made  in  former  duration,  before  the 
moving  of  the  Spirit,  before  the  appearance  of  light. 


238  ^II^S  TO  FAITH  [EsAT  V 

The  heavens  of  t?ie  seventh  and  eighth  verses,  were 
made  on  the  second  day,  after  the  earth  and  after  llglit. 
The  diflerence  of  time  proves  a  difference  of  subjects, 
just  as  there  is  a  difference  between  the  earth  of  the 
first  verse,  which  means  the  whole  terraqueous  globe, 
and  the  earth  of  the  tenth  verse,  which  is  only  the  dry 
land.     And  this  difference  between  the  heavens  of  the 
first  verse  and  the  firmament  is  strongly  marked  in  the 
fourth  verse  of  the   second  chapter — "  These  are  the 
generations  of  the  heavens  and  the  earth,  when  they 
were  created,  in  the  day  that  the  Lord  God  made  the 
earth  and  the  heavens."       In  the  first  half  reference  is 
made  to  the  primitive  creation,  and  therefore  the  order 
of  the  first  verse  is  preserved.     In  the  latter  half  refer- 
ence is  made  to  the  creation  of  the  earth  in  its  empty 
state,  and  the  subsequent  making  of  the  firmament; 
and,  therefore,  earth  is  put  first,  before  heavens,  an 
inversion  that  must  be  intentional,  as  the  phrase  "  heav- 
en and  earth  "  is  in  Scripture  a  standing  formula,  but 
the  inversion  "  earth  and  heaven  "  occurs  only  once 
more  in  the  Bible  (Ps.  cxlviii.  13).     The  first  expres- 
sion, "  the  heavens  and  the  earth,"  comprehends  all 
created  things,  the  universe ;  the  second,  "  earth  and 
heavens,"  takes  in  only  the  earth  and  that  portion  of 
the  universe  immediately  connected  with  it.     The  ob- 
ject of  the  historian  is  first  to  assert  that  God  is  the 
Creator  of  all  created  things,  invisible  as  well  as  visi- 
ble ;  then  to  narrate  the  manner  in  wdiicli  this  earth 
w^as  prepared  for  the  abode  of  man  by  the  same  Al- 
mighty Being,  so  as  to  leave  no  room  for  the  eternity 
of  matter,  nor  yet  for  two  Creators,  one  of  whom  made 
the  high  and  holy  spiritual  world,  the  other,  this  lower 
and  material  world.     The  Jews  knew  that  there  were 
other  heavens,  as  tliose  where  angels  dwell,  mentioned 
xxviii.  12-17,  whither,  perhaps,  Elijah  was  carried  (2 
Kings  ii.  1),  and  the  heavens  where  is  the  throne  of 
God  (Ps.  xi.  4 ;   ciii.  10),  called  also  the  heavens  of 
heavens.     That    these  heavens   and   the   angels   were 
made  before   the   earth   and    the  firmament   appears 
from  Job  xxxviii.  7,  "  AVhen  the  morning  stars  sang 


EssatV.]  the  mosaic  liECOKD  OF  CREATION.  £39 

together,  and  all  tlie  sons  of  God  slioutcd  for  joy." 
They  are,  therefore,  inchided  in  the  statement  of  the 
first  verse,  "  Of  old  God  made  the  heavens  and  the 
earth,"  as  they  certainly  are  in  the  first  verse  of  the 
second  chapter,  where  Moses,  summing  np  the  entire 
work  of  creation  of  the  universe,  the  primitive  creation 
and  the  six  days'  work,  says,  "  Thus  the  heavens  and 
the  earth  were  ifinished,  and  all  the  host  of  them."  The 
expression  "  host  of  heaven  "  sometimes  means  the  heav- 
enly bodies,  sometimes  angels :  thus,  in  Deut.  xix.  4, 
it  evidently  refers  to  the  former ;  in  1  Kings  xxii.  19, 
Isa.  xxiv  21,  Ps.  cxlviii.  2,  it  as  plainly  refers  to  the 
latter,  wdio  are  called  "  Jehovah's  host'"  (Josh.  v.  14, 
15),  and  "  God's  host "  (Gen.  xxxii),  where  the  corre- 
sponding word  iiwa  is  used.  Therefore,  in  this  sum- 
ming up  of  creation,  "  all  the  host  of  them  "  is  men- 
tioned to  include  angels,  often  referred  to  in  this  Book 
of  Genesis,  and  to  teach  that  they  were  not  independent 
beings,  but  creatures  of  God.  According  to  the  Bible, 
then,  this  earth  is  not  the  centre  of  the  universe.  Long 
before  it  was  fashioned  for  man  there  were  heavens,  and 
.  morning  stars,  and  angels  ;  regions  more  glorious  than 
the  earth,  heavens  more  ancient  than  the  firmament, 
heavenly  inhabitants  who  excel  in  strength,  and  who 
looked  on  in  wonder  and  adoration  when  they  beheld 
the  earth  fashioned  by  the  Creator.  Tlie  ken  of  Moses 
and  the  Hebrews  was  not  limited  to  this  earth,  nor  tlieir 
idea  of  duration  to  the  time  that  man  has  existed.  They 
knew  that  the  earth  in  its  present  condition  was  later 
than  the  heavens  and  their  host,  and  the  human  race 
young  when  compared  with  the  angels  of  God. 

10.  Yekse  2. — The  next  statement  made  by  Moses 
is  so  far  from  being  in  opposition  to  the  discoveries  of 
science  that  it  is  an  extraordinary  anticipation  of  what 
geology  teaches.  It  i^resents  to  us  the  earth  before  its 
habitation  by  man,  covered  witl;  water,  and  utterly  de- 
void of  inhabitants  or  life.  "  The  earth  was  [or,  as 
others  translate,  had  lecojne^']  desolation  and  empti- 
ness, and  darkness  upon  the  face  of  the  raging  deep, 

*  Dathius.    Post  hacc  vero  terra  facta  erat  vasta  et  edserta. 


240  ^I^S  TO  FAITH.  P'SSAtV. 

and  the  Spirit  of  God  brooding  upon  tlic  face  of  tlie 
waters."  Yery  similar  are  the  statements  of  geologists, 
who,  though  believing  that  the  earth  was  first  in  a  state 
of  igneous  fusion,  suppose  that  before  the  various  for- 
mations and  deposits  began,  it  was  first  entirely  covered 
with  water.  So  Pfafi^'  says,  '*  We  soon  perceive  not  only 
that  by  far  the  greatest  part  of  our  earth  was  under 
water,  but  that  to  water  it  owes  its  origin,  and  that 
under  water  the  entire  gradual  formation  of  these 
mighty  masses  took  place."  And  again,  "  The  earth 
was  at  first  a  molten  fiery  sphere,  over  which  existed 
a  thick  atmosphere,  containing  all  the  water  of  the 
earth.  In  consequence  of  cooling  a  firm  crust  was 
formed,  which  was  everywhere  uniformly  covered  by 
water,  condensed  in  like  manner  by  the  same  cooling 
process."*  The  conflicts  between  the  waters  and  the 
fiery  heat,  as  the  crust  of  the  earth  was  broken,  fell 
in,  or  was  upheaved,  are  vividly  described  by  M. 
d'Orbigny,  and  his  account  answers  well  to  the  words 
of  Moses,  "The  earth  was  desolation  and  emptiness, 
and  darkness  upon  the  face  of  the  raging  deep."  It 
is  not  necessary  to  accept  this  theory  of  "  a  molten 
fiery  sphere,"  as  the  Neptunists  describe  a  somewhat 
similar  state,  produced  by  water  only,  and  a  sober 
though  able  author  speaks  of  it  only  as  a  guess. 
"  Geology  .  .  .  may  guess  at  conditions  of  origi- 
nal igneous  fluidity  or  aqueous  plasticity  in  the  mass, 
and  may  hint  at  some  great  law  of  secular  contraction  ; 
but  it  must  be  confessed  that  on  these  and  similar  points 
science  is  yet  unable  to  off'er  anything  like  the  certainty 
of  demonstration."!  But  the  great  facts  of  the  sub- 
mersion of  the  earth,  and  its  desolation  and  emptiness, 
were  stated  by  Moses  more  than  3000  years  ago,  and 
his  statements  have  not  only  not  been  disj)roved,  but 
have  been  confirmed,  by  the  deductions  of  modern 
scientific  research.  But  how  this  state  of  "  igneous 
fluidity  or  aqueous  plasticity,"  and  consequent  desola- 
tion and  emptiness,  arose ;   whether  God  created  the 

*  Pfaff 's  '  Scliopfungsfreschichtc,'  pp.  3  and  G15.  Sec  also  D'Orbigny, 
'Conrs  ch'nicntairc,'  loni.  ii.,  Fascic.  i.  2G1 ;  Lardner's  *rrc-Adanute  Earth,' 
§  l!>7  ;  '  Essays  and  Reviews,'  pp.  21.3,  14. 

t  Page's 'Advanced  Text-book  of  Geology,' p  25. 


Essay  v.]  THE  MOSAIC  llECOED  OF   CREATION.  241 

earth  desolate  and  empty,  or  wlietlier  it  became  so  in 
consequence  of  some  mighty  catastrophic,  neither  Xep- 
tunists  nor  Vnlcanists  can  tell  ns,  nor  lias  Moses  ex- 
pressly declared,  though  the  latter  appears  to  some  to 
be  implied  in  his  words.  There  seems  to  be  a  contrast 
between  the  state  of  the  heavens  and  that  of  the  earth. 
"  Of  old  God  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth.  And 
the  earth  was  desolation  and  emjDtiness,"  not  so  the 
heavens.  If  Dathins's  translation,  "  The  earth  had  be- 
come desolation  and  emj)tiness,"'^  be  correct,  it  would 
follow  this  was  not  the  earth's  original  state.  How  the 
change  from  the  chaotic,  the  desolate  and  the  empty, 
was  effected,  science  cannot  tell.  Moses  informs  us 
that  it  was  by  the  action  of  the  Divine  Spirit.  "  The 
Spirit  of  God  hroodmg  on  the  face  of  the  waters,"  not 
"  the  wind  of  God,"  as  the  verb  Tacliaph  [to  brood]  is 
never  used  of  wind.  ''  The  Spirit  streamed  forth  from 
God  upon  the  chaos,  communicated  to  it  life-power, 
and  made  it  capable  of  development  at  God's  bidding, 
and  of  bringing  forth  plants  and  animals.  For,  accord- 
ing to  the  Old  Testament,  the  Spirit  of  God  is  the 
quickening  principle  of  the  world,  and  all  life  is  an 
outgoing  from  God ;  according  to  Psalm  civ.  30,  even 
the  life  of  the  vegetable  kingdom. "f 

11.  Yerses  3,  and  11-11). — The  next  Mosaic  state- 
ment is  found  in  verses  3-5,  "  And  God  said.  Let  there 
be  light,  and  there  was  light.  And  God  saw  the  light, 
that  it  w^as  good,  and  God  separated  between  the  light 
and  between  the  darkness.  And  God  called  the  light 
day,  and  the  darkness  He  called  night.  And  evening 
ha]3pened,  and  morning  happened,  one  day,":]:  and  has 

*  This  translation  is  supported  by  the  fact  that  the  verb  rr^n  is,  in  some 
twenty  places  iu  this  chapter,  correctly  translated  by  yivo/xai  and  Jio,  and  not 
by  elfil  or  sum,  and  has  elsewhere,  without  a  followint;  b,  the  same  sicfnifica- 
tion,  e.g.  Isai.  Ixiv.  5,  0,  where  see  Ewald,  Zunz,  and  Roscnmuller.  That  the 
earth  was  not  originally  desolate  also  seems  to  be  implied  iu  Isai.  xlv.  IS. 
"He  created  not  the  earth  a  desolation"  [Tohu]. 

t  Knobel  in  loc.  Comp.  Gesenius,  '  Thesaurus,'  in  Had.  tni.  "  Do 
Spiritu  Dei,  qui  rudi  crcationis  moli  incuhahat  f ovens  et  vivilicans." 

X  The  exact  force  of  the  Hebrew  words,  especially  of  the  verb  'n^'njio,  is 

more  apparent  in  the  LXX.  than  in  our  Autliorizcd  Version.     KaX  elirev  5 

6e6s  r€vr}6r}T(i}  (pa>s,  Kal   iyeucTO  <pu)s.      Kal  cldev  u   Oehs  rb   (poos  on  Ka\6i/, 

Koi  diex^pt^cey  o  Oehs  ava  fxeaou  rov  (puirhs  Kal  aua  jxiaov  rod  aicuTOvs'  Kol 

11 


242  -'^IDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  V. 

given  occasion  to  many  objections.  Celsns  fonnd  it 
strange  that  Moses  should  speak  of  days  before  the  ex- 
istence of  the  sni]/'"  "  How  did  God  create  the  light 
before  the  snn  ?  -'  asked  Yoltaire.  "  IIow  did  He  make 
the  day  before  the  sun  was  made  ?  "f  "  Modern  as- 
tronomy," says  D.  F.  Strauss,  "  found  it  contrary  to 
order,  that  the  earth  should  not  only  have  been  created 
before  the  sun,  but  should  also,  besides  day  and  night, 
have  distinction  of  the  elements  and  vegetation  before 
the  sun."  :^  "  Light  and  the  measurement  of  time  are 
represented  as  existing  before  the  manifestation  of  the 
sun,  and  this  idea,  although  repugnant  to  our  modern 
knowledge,  has  not  in  former  times  appeared  absurd," 
is  the  objection  of  '  Essa3^s  and  Eeviews  ;'§  and,  as  is 
evident,  is  not  the  result  of  modern  science,  having 
been  broached  already  by  Celsus.  As,  however,  recent 
writers  give  modern  science  the  credit  of  it,  it  becomes 
necessary  to  ask,  what  does  modern  science  teach  with 
regard  to  the  relative  ages  of  the  earth  and  the  sun  ? 
The  answer  is,  JSTothing,  absolutely  nothing  as  a  scien- 
tific certainty.  "Whether  sun  and  earth  were  created 
simultaneously,  and  in  their  present  relations — or, 
whether  the  earth,  already  created,  wandered  within 
the  range  of  solar  attraction,  or  whether,  after  the  sun 
existed,  the  earth  was  called  forth  within  that  range, 
science  does  not  know.  It  has,  however,  without  any 
reference  to  the  Book  of  Genesis,  proposed  a  theory, 
which  has  been  accepted  by  some  of  the  most  scientific 
men  of  these  days  as  highly  probable.  ||  Had  it  been 
devised  for  the  express  purpose  of  removing  the  sup- 
posed difficuties  of  the  Mosaic  account,  it  could  hardly 
have  been  more  to  the  purpose.     It  supposes  that  the 

c/caAecrei'  6  6ehs  rh  (pws  iifiipav  naX  tc>  ckStos  iKoiXeae  vviira^  Koi  iycyeTO 
kcnz^pa  KoX  iyeucTO  irpwi,  rifxipa  jxla. 

*  Origcn  '  contra  Cclsuia,'  vi.  CO,  torn.  \.  G7S. 

t  Voltaire's  Works,  vol.  xxxiii.  403. 

i  'Glaubonslehre,'  vol.  i.  p.  C22.  §  P.  219. 

I  Of  the  theory  in  its  present  form  La  Place  is  the  author.  Perhaps  the 
first  su2:p:estion  came  from  Sir  W.  Ilorschel.  It  has  been  adopted  by  the 
fireat  German  astronomer,  Mlidlcr,  and  extended  to  comets.  It  has  been 
defended  by  Pfaff,  and  its  truth  has  been  tVken  for  c;rantod  by  Humboldt, 
'Cosmos,'  1.  85,  'JO,  iv.  163.  It  is  also  advocated  by  the  author  of 'Vestiges 
of  the  Natural  Ilistory  of  Creation.' 


Essay  v.]  THE  MOSAIC  EECOKD   OF   CliEATION.  243 

v.'hole  solar  system  was  originally  one  mass  uf  vapoury 
or  nebulous  matter,  wliich,  according  to  the  laws  of 
gravitation,  assumed  the  form  of  an  immense  sphere. 
This  sphere  received  (from  without)  an  impulse  which 
caused  it  to  revolve  on  its  axis  from  west  to  east.  In 
consequence  of  this  revolving  motion,  it  became  flat- 
tened at  the  poles  and  swollen  in  the  equatorial  region, 
and  in  consequence  of  the  greatness  of  the  centrifugal 
force  at  the  equator,  and  the  contemporaneous  conden- 
sation and  contraction  of  the  nebulous  mass,  a  free 
revolving  ring,  similar  to  that  of  Saturn,  detached  it- 
self in  the  region  of  the  equator.  This  ring  not  being 
of  uniform  density,  and  in  consequence  of  contraction, 
broke  in  one  or  more  places,  and  these  fragments,  in 
obedience  to  the  laws  of  gravitation,  became  a  sphere 
or  spheres,  that  is,  a  planet,  or  planets,  all  necessarily 
revolving  from  west  to  east,  round  the  parent  mass. 
Another  ring  was  formed  in  like  manner,  and  another 
planet  came  into  existence,  and  so  on  until  the  whole 
solar  system  was  complete.  A  similar  process  took 
place  with  regard  to  some  of  the  planets,  and  thus  they 
got  their  moons.* 

E"ow,  according  to  this  theory,  not  only  the  earth, 
but  all  the  planets  of  our  system,  existed  before  the  sun 
in  its  present  condition.  As  these  planets  are  now  not 
self-illuminating,  it  may  be  supposed  that  the  rings, 
when  detached  from  the  original  nebulous  mass,  were 
dark  also,  and  therefore  that  the  equatorial  matter  of 
the  parent  nebulous  sphere  of  which  they  were  com- 

*  La  Place,  'Exposition  du  Systcmo  du  Monde,'  G^'""  edition,  note  vii.  pp. 
405  and  sqq. ;  Pfuft's  '  Seluipfungsgeschichtc,'  Kap.  xiii. ;  Humboldt's  'Cos- 
mos,' as  above.  Tbis  theory  is  also  apitlicd  by  La  Place  and  others  to  account 
for  the  zodiacal  light.  M.  Plateau  has  furnished  an  ingenious  experimental 
veritication.  lie  mixed  alcohol  and  water  until  the  mixture  was  of  the  same 
specific  gravity  as  oil.  The  mixture  was  then  put  into  a  glass  box,  and  a 
certain  quantity  of  oil  introduced,  which  immediately  took  the  form  of  a 
globe.  He  now  applied  an  axis,  which  passed  through  the  axis  of  the  oil 
globe,  and  caused  the  box  to  rotate  rajjidly.  In  consequence  of  the  rotation 
the  oil  globe  flattened  at  the  poles  and  swelled  out  at  the  equator.  A  more 
rapid  motion  disengaged  a  ring  of  oil,  revolving  in  the  same  direction  as  the 
oil  globe.  This  ring  broke,  and  the  fragments  formed  globes  or  planets  ro- 
tating on  their  axes,  and  revolving  round  tiie  j^aront  globe.  See  Pfaff,  j). 
318;  also  'Vestiges  of  the  Natural  History  of  Creation,'  reprint  of  sixth  edi- 
tion, pp.  11-14. 


244  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  V. 

posed  was  also  devoid  of  liglit — that  therefore  the  sun 
did  not  receive  its  himinous  atmosphere  until  all  the 
planets  had  been  detached.  But,  until  this  luminous 
atmosphere  existed,  they  could  not  derive  their  light 
from  the  sun.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  it  be  supposed 
that  these  detached  rings  were  luminous,  and  that  the 
planets  formed  from  them  were  luminous  also,  then 
the  planets  had  a  light  of  their  own,  independent  of  the 
sun.  But  however  that  be,  so  much  follows  from  this 
theory,  that  the  earth  existed  before  the  residuary 
parent  globe  could  be  called  the  sun,  or  could  perform 
its  office  of  luminary  to  the  system.  If  the  earth  there- 
fore had  liglit  during  this  period,  it  must  have  been  de- 
rived from  some  other  source.  That  this  is  possible 
cannot  now  be  denied.  The  discoveries  with  regard  to 
heat,  combustion,  electricity,  galvanism,  show  that 
there  may  be  light  independent  of  the  sun.  It  is  also 
now  generally  received  that  the  sun  itself  is  an  opaque 
body,  and  that  solar  light  proceeds  from  a  lummous  at- 
mosphere by  which  it  is  surrounded."  The  progress 
of  science  has,  therefore,  neutralized  the  objection  that 
light  could  not  exist  before  the  sun.  Indeed  it  has 
done  more — it  has  proved  the  accuracy  of  the  Mosaic 
language.  Moses  does  not  call  the  sun  "6^;',  light,"  but 
"  Ma6i\  a  place  or  instrument  of  light,"  a  luminary, 
or  candlestick,f  just  what  modern  science  has  discov- 
ered it  to  be.  Thus,  so  far  is  the  Mosaic  doctrine  of 
light  from  being  opposed  to  recent  discoveries,  that  if 
Moses  had  wished  to  describe  the  modern  doctrine  con- 
cerning light,  he  could  not  have  expressed  himself  more 
happily.  ''  Scripture  does  not  say  that  God  created  the 
light,  or  made  it,  but  said,  '  Let  it  be,  and  it  was ! ' 

*  Arago's  'Astronomy,'  pp.  5G,  57;  PfafF,  p.  G21 ;  Humboldt's  'Cosmo?,' 
iii.  271,  etc. ;  Walker's  '  Physical  Constitution  of  the  Sun,'  p.  6.  The  won- 
derful discoveries  of  Kirchoff  and  others  in  solar  chemistry  are  supposed  by 
some  to  confirm  La  Place's  theory,  and  to  prove  that  the  earth  was  before  the 
sun,  and  had  a  light  of  its  own. 

•f  Knobel,  in  his  Commentary,  has  "Lichtorte."  For  the  meaning  of 
nouns  formed  by  prefixing  12,  see  Ewald's  'Grammar,'  |§  S37  and  839  :— "?2 
may  signify,  first,  that  wh'erein  anything  happens,  the  place  of  action  (the 
so-called  Q  loci) ;  ....  secondly,  the  itistrumcnt  of  action  ;  thirdly,  the  what 
of  the  action."  Compare  also  "Simouis  'Arcanum  Formarum,'  pp.  4.47-501; 
Gcscnius'a  '  Lehrgeb.  p.  4'J4,  §  14. 


Essay  v.]  THE  MOSAIC  EECOED  OF  CREATION.  245 

If,  tlieii,  light  be  not  a  separate  and  definite  body,  but 
only  vibrations  or  undulations  of  ether,  somehow  set  in 
motion,  the  sacred  writer  could  not  have  expressed  its 
appearance  in  words  more  beautiful  or  more  agreeable 
to  truth."  '^■ 

JSTow,  this  theory  of  La  Place  may  or  may  not  be 
true,t  but  it  is  an  offspring  of  modern  science,  and 
implies,  just  like  the  Mosaic  account,  the  pre-existence 
of  the  earth  before  the  sun  became  the  luminary  of  the 
system.  It  does,  indeed,  also  imply  the  pre-existence 
of  the  great  parent  nebulous  globe,  but  this  is  not  con- 
trary to  the  Mosaic  account.  Moses  does  not  say  that 
the  body  of  the  sun  or  moon  and  stars  were  created  on 
the  fourth  day,  but  according  to  the  HebrcAV,  "  God 
said.  Let  there  be  light-holders  in  the  firmament  of  the 
heaven,  ....  and  let  them  be  for  light-holders  in  the 
fiiTQament  of  the  heaven  to  give  light  upon  the  earth, 

and  God  made  the  two  great  light-holders and 

God  gave  'jn'^i,  them  in  the  firmament  of  heaven  to 
give  light  upon  the  earth,  and  the  stars."  The  Hebrew 
word,  Asah,  make,  may  signify  "  make  ready,  prepare, 
dress"  (see  Gesenius's  '  Lexicon,'  in  verb.).  The  crea- 
tion of  the  sun  or  parent  globe  may  be  included  in 
verse  1,  and  the  work  of  the  fourth  day  consisted  in 
furnishing  it  with  its  luminous  atmosj)here.  When 
this  took  place,  and  the  sun  began  to  shed  its  light, 
then  the  moon,  and  the  earth's  fellow  planets,  "  the 
stars,"  of  verse  16,  became  luminaries  also.  The  stars 
of  this  sixteenth  verse  are  certainly  difi'erent  from  those 
morning  stars  of  which  Job  speaks,  which  were  in  ex- 
istence long  before,  and,  as  connected  w^ith  the  sun  and 
moon,  seem  naturally  to  mean  those  l)elonging  to  the 
solar  system,  and  which  received  their  light  on  the 
fourth  day,  when  the  sun  became  luminous.     Having 

*  '  Cosmogony  of  Moses,'  by  M.  Marcel  de  Serres,  Professor  of  Mineralogy 
and  Geology  at  Montpellier,  German  edition,  p.  45.  Compare  the  language 
of  St.  Paul,  2  Cor.  iv.  6.  It  i3  a  curious  fact  that  the  Hebrew  verb  ~!-;:,  which 
signifies  "to  flow,"  also  signifies  "to  shine,  give  light."    fT^ns,  light.    Job 

iii.  4. 

+  Compare  WheWcll's  'Indications  of  the  Creator.'  pp.  54,  1G2,  and  his 
'Philosophy  of  Discovery,'  pp.  304,  SOo;  'Plurality  of  Worlds,'  p.  lOi). 


246  -^-I^S  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  V. 

thus  seen  how  modern  science  proves  tliat  the  eartli 
and  L'ght  might  exist,  and,  according  to  scientific 
theory,  probably  did  exist  before  the  sun,  it  is  no 
longer  difficult  to  conceive,  how  there  might  also  be  a 
measure  of  time.  What  that  measure  was,  the  length 
of  that  '^  one  day,"  of  which  Moses  speaks,  it  is  now 
necessary  to  inquire. 

12.  The  question,  then,  naturally  arises,  How  are 
we  to  understand  the  word  ''  day  "  ?  Is  it  a  period  of 
twenty-four  hours,  or  is  it  an  indefinite  portion  of  time  ? 
It  is  quite  certain  that  the  Almighty  could  not  only 
arrange  the  earth  in  six  ordinary  days,  but  that  He 
could  create  the  whole  universe  by  a  momentary  ex- 
ertion of  His  power.  The  shortness  of  the  time, 
therefore,  is  no  valid  objection.  The  contrary  ob- 
jection that  six  ordinary  days  are  too  long,  and  that 
instantaneous  creation  is  more  worthy  of  Omnipotence, 
is  just  as  strong.  But  natm^e  and  Scripture  both 
teach  us  that  it  has  pleased  God  to  work  gradually. 
His  purpose  was  to  fill  the  earth  with  inhabitants,  and 
yet  only  a  single  pair  was  created.  He  announced  the 
lledeemer  in  IVadise,  but  4000  years  passed  away 
before  ,the  fulness  of  the  time  was  come.  It  is  His 
will  that  the  whole  earth  shall  be  filled  with  the  knowl- 
edge of  Himself;  but  the  diffusion  of  that  knowledge 
has  been  left  to  gradual  preaching  and  human  instru- 
mentality. So  in  nature,  trees,  animals,  and  men 
have  small  beginnings,  and  require  time  to  attain  to 
perfection.  This  twofold  course  of  the  Divine  procedure, 
in  grace  and  in  nature,  guards  us  against  the  necessity 
of  supposing  that  the  arrangement  of  the  earth  was 
of  necessity  sudden,  or  a  series  of  instantaneous  ex- 
hibitions of  Omnipotence.  The  facts  of  creation,  how- 
ever, must  be  gathered  from  the  Mosaic  statement. 
Moses  undoubtedly  reckons  six  days.  But  it  is  an  old 
and  true  observation,  that  in  the  Bible  the  word  "day" 
often  signifies  undefined  periods  of  time,  as  "  the  day 
of  the  Lord,"  "the  day  of  vengeance,"  "that  day," 
"the  night  is  fiir  spent,  the  day'is  at  hand.]'  In  this 
narrative  (ii.  4)  the  word  takes  in  the  whole  time  of  the 


Essay  v.]  THE  MOSAIC  EECOED  OF  CREATION.  217 

creative  work.  The  first  three  days  were  certainly  not 
measured  by  the  interval  between  snnset  and  sunset, 
for  as  yet  the  sun  w^as  not  perfect,  and  had  no  light. 
The  first  day  consisted  of  an  alternation  of  light  and 
darkness.  But  how  long  the  light  lasted,  and  how  long 
the  darkness  imtil  the  next  dawn,  is  not  said.  That 
there  was  an  alternation  of  light  and  darkness,  is  re- 
lated in  the  words,  "And  God  divided  between  the 
light  and  between  the  darkness.  And  God  called  the 
light  Day,  and  the  darkness  He  called  E'ight."  First 
there  had  been  universal  darkness.  "Darkness  was 
upon  the  face  of  the  deep."  Out  of  this  darkness  God 
caused  the  light  to  shine.  "  God  said.  Let  there  be 
light,  and  there  was  light."  It  might,  then,  be  sup- 
posed that  this  light  being  as  universal  as  the  darkness 
had  been,  there  "svas  now  only  continued,  uninterrupted 
light  in  the  world,  and  no  darkness  more  until  the  new 
order  of  things  commenced  in  the  fourth  day.  The 
sacred  historian  guards  against  this  supposition  by 
relating  that  God  divided  between  the  light  and  the 
darkness,  and  that,  in  consequence  of  this  division, 
evening  happened,  and  morning  happened,  so  that  one 
stage  of  creation  was  divided  from  the  other  by  an 
interval  of  darkness.  The  time  of  light  in  wdiich  the 
Divine  work  proceeded,  He  called  Day,  and  the  time  of 
darkness  He  called  Night."  It  was  not  a  day  measured 
by  the  presence  of  the  sun's  light,  nor  a  night  meas- 
ured by  the  absence  of  that  light.  There  was  light 
and  there  was  darkness,  and  God  called  the  light  Day, 
and  the  darkness  He  called  !N'iglit.  The  union  of  these 
two  periods  of  light  and  darkness  lie  calls  "  one  day," 
"a  second  day,"  "  a  third  day,"  to  mark  the  distinctive 
breaks  in  the  progress  of  the  development  of  the  world. 
In  the  fifth  verse  "  day  "  is  taken  in  two  senses, — first, 
of  the  duration  of  the  light;  and  secondly,  of  the 
whole  time  of  light  and  darkness  together.  But  how 
long  the  light  continued  before  it  was  evening,  or  how 
long  the  darkness  continued  before  it  was  morning,  or 

*  Compare  the  words  of  our  Lord,  "  I  must  work  the  works  of  Him  that 
scut  me,  vrhile  it  is  day ;  the  night  cometh  wheu  no  mau  can  work." 


248  -^I^S  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  V. 

what  was  the  duration  of  the  two  togetlier,  we  are  not 
told  ;  and  so  far  there  is  nothing  to  cause  us  to  con- 
chide  that  the  whole  was  equal  to  twenty-four  hours. 
It  is  true  that  David  Strauss  ^  urges  the  mention  of 
"evening  and  morning,"  and  thence  concludes  that 
they  must  be  common  days ;  and  there  is  a  general 
persuasion  that  Moses  here  reckons  according  to  the 
usual  custom  of  the  Hebrews,  from  evening  to  evening, 
supj)osing  that  the  original  darkness  is  the  first  even- 
ing, and  that  the  space  of  time  occupied  by  it  and  by 
the  light  which  succeeded,  is  described  as  the  first  day. 
But  this  mistake  arises  from  confining  the  attention  to 
the  English  translation,  which  says  "  And  the  evening 
and  the  morning  were  the  first  day."  f  But  the  He- 
brew and  the  ancient  versions  have  "And  evening 
happened,  and  morning  happened,  one  day."  Now  if 
the  first  day  begins  w4th  the  original  darkness,  then 
the  first  day  consists  of  the  original  darkness,  the  light, 
and  the  evening  that  followed,  ending  with  the  morning, 
and  thus  the  first  day  would  have  an  evening  at  the 
beginning  and  an  evening  at  the  end.  The  mention  of 
Tnorning^  "  evening  happened  and  morning  happened," 
ought  to  have  guarded  against  this  mistake.  Evening 
and  morning  do  not  together  make  a  day,  but  only  a 
part  of  a  day.  The  whole  day  is  not  complete  Tintil 
the  following  evening.  But  that  Moses  does  not  here 
reckon  from  evening  to  evening  is  proved  from  the 
account  of  the  first  day.  The  evocation  of  light  is  the 
prominent  object  of  the  first  day's  work,  but  it  is  after 
this  evocation  of  light  that  it  is  said  "And  there  was 
evening,  and  there  was  morning,  one  day."  If,  there- 
fore, the  day  began  witli  the  evening,  light  w^as  created 
before  that  first  day  began,  and  there  w^ould  be  no 
account  at  all  of  what  was  done  the  first  day.  The 
first  day  must,  therefore,  be  reckoned  as  beginning  at 
the  appearance  of  light,  and  continuing  through  the 
evening  to  the  dawn.     The  appearance  of  light,  with 

*  'Glaubenslchre,'  p.  624. 

t  This  is  plaiuly  the  source  of  error  in  'Essays  and  Reviews,'  where  it  is 
said,  "  The  space  of  time  occupied  by  the  original  darkness  and  the  light 
which  succeeded,  is  described  as  the  first  day."    P.  219. 


Essay  V.]  THE  MOSAIC  RECORD  OF  CREATION.  249 

the  darkness  that  followed  the  evening  until  the  next 
dawn,  is  the  first  day.  "With  that  dawn  the  second 
day  begins.  This  mode  of  reckoning,  unique  in  the 
Bible,  and  peculiar  to  this  first  chapter  of  Genesis,  sug- 
gests that  the  days  are  peculiar  too.  To  know  the 
length  of  the  first  day,  it  would  be  necessary  to  know 
how  long  the  night  continued  after  its  first  appearance 
until  the  evening  came,  and  then  how  long  from  even- 
ing until  the  first  dawn.  But  this  is  not  told  us.  The 
ordinance  concerning  the  reckoning  of  time,  "  Let  them 
be  for  signs,  and  for  seasons,  and  for  days  and  for 
years,"  was  not  given  until  the  fourth  day,  and  could 
have  no  application  until  after  the  creation  of  Adam. 
Not  by  the  sun,  then,  were  the  days  measured,  but  by 
light  and  darkness,  which  God  called  Day  and  Night, 
of  the  length  of  which  we  are  not  informed;  and,  con- 
sequently, there  is  nothing  in  the  text  to  compel  us  to 
restrict  the  days  to  the  time  of  the  earth's  diurnal  mo- 
tion. If  the  length  of  the  days  is  to  be  measured  by 
that  of  the  seventh,  the  day  of  God's  rest,  those  days 
must  be  indefinite  periods,  for  the  day  of  rest  still 
continues.  It  is  said,  chap.  ii.  2,  "And  he  rested  on 
the  seventh  day  from  all  the  work  which  He  had 
made,"  without  any  mention  of  evening  and  morning. 
The  day  of  rest,  therefore,  still  continues,  and  this  is 
plainly  expressed  and  argued  in  the  E2)istle  to  the 
Hebrews,  "  Let  us  therefore  fear,  lest  a  promise  being 
left  us  of  entering  into  His  rest,  any  of  you  should 
seem  to  come  short  of  it,"  or,  as  some  moderns  trans- 
late, "  Let  us  then  be  careful,  lest  as  a  promise  to  enter 
into  His  [God's]  rest  still  remains,  any  of  you  appear 
remaining  behind."  On  which  words  Stuart  says, 
"  In  chapter  iv.  1,  he  brings  forward  the  assertion  that 
the  promise  of  entering  into  the  rest  of  God  still  re- 
mains, addressed  to  the  Hebrew  Christians  as  it  was 
to  the  Israelites  of  old.  .  .  .  But  what  is  the  rest  in 
question?  Is  it  quiet  possession  of  the  land  of 
Canaan  ?  No,  says  the  Apostle.  Believers  now  en- 
ter into  the  rest  (verse  3),  i.e.  (adds  he)  the  same  kind 
of  rest  as  Avas  anciently  profiered.  Moreover,  God 
11* 


250  ^II^S  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  V. 

calls  it  KaTdiravalv  fiov,  My  rest,  i.e.  (adds  lie)  sncli 
rest  as  God  enjoyed,  after  He  completed  the  creation 
of  the  world,  consequently  spiritual,  heavenly  rest. 
This  is  plain  (as  he  goes  on  in  verse  4)  from  what  the 
Scripture  says.  Gen.  ii.  2,  concerning  the  rest  of  God." 
According,  then,  to  this  declaration  that  God's  rest  or 
Sabbath  still  continues,  the  seventh  day  of  creation  is 
an  indefinite  period  and  the  other  days  may  be  also. 
The  six  days  are  days  of  the  Lord,  God's  days,  as  the 
first  Sabbath  w^as  God's  rest,  and,  therefore,  as  God 
rested  on  His  seventh  day,  man  is  commanded  to  rest 
on  his  seventh  day,  and  God  blessed  and  sanctified  it. 
13.  But  though  the  Mosaic  language  implies  that  the 
six  days  of  which  he  speaks  are  six  periods  of  time,  it 
does  not  follow  that  they  are  to  be  identified  with  the 
six  periods  commonly  received  in  geology.  Indeed,  to 
those  wdio  have  no  theory  to  establish,  it  is  apparent 
that  they  do  not  agree,  neither  is  it  necessary  that  they 
should.  That  the  Mosaic  account  is  not  contradicted 
by  modern  discovery  is  quite  sufiicient.  The  impossi- 
bility of  identifying  these  periods  is  evident  from  the 
fact  that  of  the  work  of  two  days  in  the  Mosaic  ac- 
count geology  knows  nothing,  and  astronomy  nothing 
certain ;  namely,  that  of  the  first  on  which  the  light 
was  called  forth  ;  and  of  the  fourth  day,  when  the  sun 
and  the  planetary  system  were  perfected.  Moses  gives 
an  outline  of  the  history  of  creation,  such  as  would  be 
intelligible  to  those  for  whom  he  wrote,  and  suitable  as 
an  introduction  to  Divine  revelation,  and  on  both  ac- 
counts necessarily  limited  in  the  matter  and  brief  in 
the  narration.  He,  therefore,  notices  only  those  things 
necessary  to  a  true  religious  system,  or  perceptible  by 
men.  After  the  original  creation  of  heaven  and  earth, 
and  the  condition  of  earth,  he  mentions  the  evocation 
of  light  and  the  creation  of  the  ether,  in  which  the 
heavenly  bodies  move,  as  cfi'ected  in  the  first  two  days. 
Whether  anything  else  was  created  in  those  two  days, 
he  neither  afiirms  nor  denies.  So  far  therefore  as  the 
Mosaic  record  is  concerned,  these  two  days  may  in- 
clude the  whole  of  the  primary,  secondary,  and  tertiary 


Essay  v.]  THE  MOSAIC  PwECOED  OF  CREATION.  051 

formations,  with  all  their  products,  their  flora  and  their 
fauna.  The  products  of  those  periods,  buried  in  the 
earth,  were,  so  far  as  we  know,  utterly  unknown  to  the 
Israelites  and  their  contemporaries,  and  to  mankind 
for  many  ages  after.  Even  to  ourselves  the  knowledge 
is  recent.  For  Moses  to  mentioif  them,  was  not  only 
unnecessary,  but  would  have  been  altogether  out  of 
place.  Such  details  would  have  encumbered  the  out- 
line, and  turned  away  the  attention  from  God  the 
Creator  to  things  at  that  time  invisible  and  unintelli- 
gible. The  object  of  the  Mosaic  narrative  is  to  explain 
the  origin  of  the  universe  and  of  its  parts,  as  they  were 
known  or  visible  to  men  of  that  day.  So  soon,  there- 
fore, as  he  has  mentioned  the  light  and  the  ether,  he 
advances  at  once  to  the  preparation  of  the  earth  for 
man ;  and  thus  the  third  day  presents  the  dry  land  in 
its  present  state,  w^ith  its  flora  diff*ering  from  the  pre- 
ceding geological  stages.  Of  this  state  of  things,  Page 
says  :  ''  At  the  close  of  the  Pleistocene  period  the  pres- 
ent distribution  of  sea  and  land  seems  to  have  been  es- 
tablished ;  the  land  presenting  the  same  surface  of 
contiguration,  and  the  sea  the  same  coast  line,  with  the 
exception  of  such  modifications  as  have  since  been  pro- 
duced by  the  atmospheric,  aqueous,  and  other  causes, 
described  in  chap.  iii.  At  the  close  of  that  period,  the 
earth  also  appears  to  have  been  peopled  by  its  present 
flora  and  fauna,  with  the  exception  of  some  local  re- 
movals of  certain  animals,  and  the  general  extinction 
of  a  few  species."  *  According  to  the  Mosaic  account 
the  growth  of  grass,  herb  and  fruit  trees,  begun  on  the 
third  day,  must  have  gone  on  through  the  fourth. 
Then  on  the  fifth  day  the  marine,  and  on  the  sixth  the 
land  animals  of  the  present  period  were  called  into  ex- 
istence. The  words  of  Moses,  "  Let  the  dry  land  ap- 
pear," are  in  exact  accordance  wdth  wdiat  geology 
relates.  The  rise  of  the  ocean  had  buried  the  tertiary 
world  in  its  waters..  "  The  disruption  of  the  earth's 
crust,  extending  W.  iG°  S.,  and  E.  1G°  K,  through  which 
the  chain  of  the  great  Alps  was  forced  up  to  its  pres- 

*  'Advanced  Text-book,'  p.  300. 


252  ^^^^  TO  FAITH.  [EssatV. 

cnt  elevation,  Avliicli,  according  to  M.  d'Orbigny,  was 
simultaneous  with  that  which  forced  np  the  Chilian 
Andes,  a  chain  which  extends  over  a  length  of  3000 
miles  of  the  western  continent,  terminated  the  tertiar}' 
age,  and  preceded  immediately  the  creation  of  the 
human  race  and  its  concomitant  tribes.  The  waters  of 
the  seas  and  oceans,  lifted  up  from  their  beds  by  this 
immense  perturbation,  swept  over  the  continents  with 
irresistible  force,  destroying  instantaneously  the  entire 
flora  and  fauna  of  the  last  tertiary  period,  and  burying 
its  ruins  in  the  sedimentary  deposits  which  ensued.  .  .  . 
When  the  seas  had  settled  into  their  new  beds,  and  the 
outlines  of  the  land  were  permanently  defined,  the 
latest  and  greatest  act  of  creation  was  accomplished  by 
clothing  the  earth  with  the  vegetation  which  now 
covers  it,  peopling  the  land  and  the  water  with  the 
animal  tribes  which  now  exist,  and  calling  into  being 
the  human  race.  .  .  .  Tlie  most  conspicuous  condition 
which  distinguishes  the  present  from  all  j)ast  periods  is 
the  existence  of  the  human  race  among  its  fauna,  the 
attributes  of  which  are  so  peculiar  as  to  place  it  out  of 
all  analogy  with  the  other  classes  of  animals.  Another 
striking  physical  difference  between  the  present  and 
all  former  periods  consists  in  the  different  divisions  of 
the  earth's  surface  into  climatological  zones,  each  zone 
having  its  peculiar  fauna  and  flora.  In  all  former  ages 
and  periods,  including  those  which  immediately  pre- 
ceded the  present,  no  traces  of  climatic  difference  have 
been  found. "^  In  all  this  there  is  nothing  inconsistent 
with  the  Mosaic  statement.  There  is  one  most  striking 
and  extraordinary  coincidence  :  Moses  represents  the 
earth  as  existing  for  a  long  period  before  the  sun  be- 
came its  source  of  light  and  heat.  During  that  period 
there  could  have  been  no  climatic  difterencc,  as  this 
depends  upon  the  position  of  the  earth  w^ith  reference 
to  the  sun.  Now  this  exactly  agrees  with  the  conclu- 
sions of  geology,  which  asserts,  as  we  have  seen,  that 
before  the  human  period  there  was  no  diflerence  of 
climate,  that  the  earth  was  not  dependent  on  the  sun 

*  Lardner's  *  Popular  Geology/  §§  553,  555,  561. 


E63AYV.]  THE  MOSAIC  RECOKD  OF   CREATION.  253 

for  its  temperature,  that  there  was  apparently  one  nni- 
forni  high  temperature  over  the  whole  earth,  and  con- 
sequently that  the  flora  and  fauna  of  warm  climates  are 
found,  in  the  prehuman  period,  in  latitudes  Avhere  they 
could  not  now  exist.  Here  then  is  an  instance  of  the 
extraordinary  scientific  accuracy  of  the  Mosaic  ac- 
count. 

14.  Another  objection  to  Scriptural  cosmogony  is, 
that  the  Bible  asserts  that  the  earth  is  immovable. 
''The  Hebrew  records,  the  basis  of  religious  truth, 
manifestly  countenanced  the  opinion  of  the  earth's  im- 
mobility." *  The  proofs  of  this  proposition  are  not 
taken  from  Moses,  who  says  nothing  on  the  subject,  but 
from  such  pages  as  Ps.  xciii.  1, — "The  world  also  is 
established  that  it  cannot  be  moved ; "  and  Ps.  civ.  5, 
— "  Who  laid  tlie  foundations  of  the  earth,  that  it  should 
not  be  moved  forever."  See  also  Ps.  cxix.  90,  91.  Ac- 
cording to  this  mode  of  interpretation,  it  can  also  be 
proved  that  the  Hebrews  also  held  that  a  pious  man 
was  an  immovable  fixture  ;  for  it  is  said.  Pro  v.  x. 
30,  "The  righteous  shall  never  be  moved,"  the  same 
word  in  Hebrew.  But  this  objection  rests  on  simple 
ignorance  of  the  Hebrew  word  translated  "moved." 
This  word.  Mot  (^"i^),  signifies,  as  Gesenius  says,  "  to 
waver,  to  shake,  to  totter,"  and,  therefore,  it  is  applied 
to  the  feet  of  one  in  motion  in  Ps.  xvii.  5, — "  Hold  up 
my  goings  in  thy  paths,  that  my  footsteps  slip  not ; "  or, 
as  the  margin  has  it,  "  be  not  moved."  Can  any  one 
be  found  so  silly  as  to  suppose  that  David  prayed  that 
his  feet  might  be  immovably  fixed  ?  The  whole  prayer 
implies  motion,  walking  in  the  Lord's  ways  ;  and  the 
latter  part  of  the  petition  is  that  his  feet  might  not 
"  totter,"  that  he  might  not  stumble.  So  far,  therefore, 
are  the  above  passages  from  declaring  that  the  earth  is 
immovable,  that  they  necessarily  imply  its  motion. 
"The  world  is  established  that  it  cannot  totter,"  not 
even  in  that  velocity  of  motion  with  which  it  compasses 
the  sun.     A  totter,  a  slip,  would  be  of  dreadful  conse- 

*  *  Essays  and  Reviews,'  p.  20S.    Sec  also  Hitchcock's  '  Religion  of  Geol- 
ogy,' pp.  25  and  43. 


254  ^IDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  V. 

quence  to  its  inhabitants ;  but  the  Lord  has  so  arranged 
and  steadied  its  motions,  tliat  no  totter  is  possible. 
The  'wonderful  mode  of  its  suspension  in  space,  as  well 
as  that  of  the  heavenly  bodies,  as  necessarily  implied  in 
the  Scriptural  doctrine  of  an  ethereal  expanse,  is  also 
beautifully  expressed  in  Job  xxvi.  7.  "  He  stretcheth 
out  the  north  over  the  empty  place ;  he  hangeth  the 
earth  upon  nothing."  To  infer  that  Scripture  teaches 
the  immobility  of  the  earth  because  it  speaks  of  sunrise 
and  sunset,  or  because  Joshua  said,  ''  Sun,  stand  thou 
still,"  is  just  as  fair  as  to  attribute  the  same  error  to  tlie 
compilers  of  almanacks  and  astronomical  tables,  or  to 
scientific  men  in  their  common  parlance.  There  are 
certain  popular  phrases  which  no  universality  of  sci- 
ence will  ever  banish  from  general  use.  The  great  his- 
torian of  the  Inductive  Sciences,  like  all  other  people 
of  common  sense,  uses  the  popular  language.  "  The  mo- 
tions of  the  sun,  the  succession  of  the  places  of  his  ris- 
ing and  settii]g  at  difierent  times  of  the  year,  the  great- 
est height  which  he  reaches  ....  would  all  exhibit 
several  cycles.  .  .  .  Tlie  turning  lack  of  the  sun,  when 
he  had  reached  his  greatest  distance  to  the  south  or  the 
north,  as  shown  either  by  his  rising  or  his  height  at 
noon,  would  jDcrhaps  be  the  most  observable  of  such 
circumstances."  *  If  Copernicus  himself  had  been  in 
a  similar  position  with  that  of  Joshua,  he  would  have 
used  just  the  same  language.  To  the  end  of  time  the 
most  scientific  of  men  wdll  continue  to  speak  of  sunrise 
and  sunset — the  sun  passing  the  meridian,  or  sinking 
below  the  horizon  ;  and  he  who  w^ould  try  to  substitute 
a  more  exact  phraseology  would  be  regarded  as  more 
of  a  pedant  than  a  philosopher. 

15.  Verses  C-S. — The  Moscdc  firmament  not  a 
solid  vault. — In  close  connection  with  this  objection  is 
that  directed  against  the  Mosaic  account  of  "  the  fir- 
mament." It  was  already  urged  by  Yoltaire,  and  in 
recent  times  oft  triumphantly  repeated,  to  show  the 
supposed  ignorance  and  gross  conceptions  of  the  He- 
brew people.      Gesenius,  Winer,  Knobel,   t^c,   have 

*  Vol.  i.  p.  127. 


Essay  v.]  THE  MOSAIC   EECOllD  OF  CREATION.  £65 

patronized  it;  their  statements  have  been  transferred 
Avholesale  into  popular  English  works,  and  lately  re- 
peated in  '' Essays  and  Reviews''  (pp.  219,  220) :— ^'The 
work  of  the  second  day  of  creation  is  to  erect  the  vault 
of  heaven  (Ileb.,  raltia  ;  Gr.  a-Tepicojua  ;  Lat.,  firmamen- 
tum),  which  is  represented  as  supporting  an  ocean  of 
water  above  it.  The  waters  are  said  to  be  divided,  so 
that  some  are  below,  some  above  the  vault.  That  the 
Hebrews  understood  the  sky,  lirmament,  or  heaven,  to 
be  a  permanent  solid  vault,  as  it  appears  to  the  ordi- 
nary observer,  is  evident  enough  from  various  expres- 
sions made  use  of  concerning  it.  It  is  said  to  have 
pillars  (Job  xxvi.  11),  foundations  (2  Sam.  xxii.  8),  doors 
(Ps.  Ixxviii.  23),  and  windows  (Gen.  vii.  11).  Ko 
quibbling  about  the  derivation  of  the  word  ralia,  which 
is  literally  '  something  beaten  out,'  can  affect  the  ex- 
plicit description  of  the  Mosaic  writer,  contained  in  the 
words,  'The  waters  that  are  above  the  firmament,'  or 
avail  to  show  that  he  was  aware  that  the  sky  is  but 
transparent. 

"  JVoie. — The  root  is  generally  applied  to  express  the 
hammering  or  beating  out  of  metal  plates  ;  hence  some- 
thing beaten  or  spread  out.  It  has  been  pretended 
that  the  word  7rJcia  may  be  translated  expcm.se,  so  as 
merely  to  mean  empty  space.  The  context  sufficiently 
rebuts  this." 

This  objection,  if  well  founded,  would  be  conclusive 
proof  of  the  opposition  between  astronomic  science  and 
the  Mosaic  cosmogony.  But,  happily,  it  is  the  weak- 
est of  all  the  objecdons,  and  the  most  easily  refuted  by 
Scripture  statement,  and  by  the  history  of  interpre- 
tation. "The  Hebrews,"  says  Mr.  Goodwin,  "under- 
stood the  sky,  firmament,  or  heaven  to  be  a  permanent 
solid  vault."  Here  are  two  assertions :  First,  that  the 
Hebrews  understood  the  firmament  or  heaven  to  be  a 
vault.  Secondly,  that  they  regarded  that  vault  as 
solid.  The  first  assertion,  a  repetition  of  Gcsenins's 
he7nis2ylicerii  instai\  is  totally  without  foundation.  The 
word  ral:ia  signifies  not  vanity  but,  as  all  allow,  an  ex- 
panse^ something  sjyread  out,  whether  solid  or  unsolid. 


256 


AIDS   TO    FAITH.  [Essay  V. 


and  therefore  incompatible  with  the  idea  of  vault  or 
arch.  But  the  main  part  of  the  objection  is  that  the 
firmament,  or  heavens,  are  solid  or  iirm.  Kow,  ac- 
cording to  Scripture,  the  firmament,  or  heaven,  is  that 
space  or  place  where  birds  fly.  They  could  not  fly  in 
a  solid  vault ;  therefore  the  firmament  cannot  be  a  solid 
vault.  This  is  proved  by  the  following  references.  In 
Gen.  i.  28,  birds  are  called  "  the  fowl  of  the  heavens  " 
(not  "  air,"  as  the  Authorized  Version  has  it) — a  de- 
scription utterly  inapplicable  if  the  heavens  be  a  per- 
manent solid  vault,  in  wdiich  the  heavenly  bodies  were 
fixed.  "The  fowl  of  the  solid  vault"  w^ould  be  non- 
sense. If  the  heavens  be  the  expanse,  beginning  at 
the  earth,  extending  to  the  stars,  and  including  the  air, 
the  description  is  appropriate ;  and  so  convinced  were 
our  translators  that  the  heavens  have  this  meaning,  that 
they  have  here  and  elsewhere  translated  "  fowl  of  the 
air,"  not  "  fowl  of  the  heavens."  The  reason  why 
Moses  calls  birds  fowls  of  the  heavens  is  because  they 
fly  in  the  heavens,  as  we  read,  Deut.  iv.  12,  "any 
winged  fowl  that  flieth  in  the  heavens."  And  again, 
Prov.  xxx.  19,  "The  way  of  an  eagle  in  the  heavens." 
And  again,  Jer.  viii.  7,  "The  stork  in  the  heavens 
knoweth  his  appointed  time."  In  all  these  passages, 
"  heavens "  means  the  place  where  birds  fl3\^  In 
Psalm  Ixxviii.  36,  the  word  means  the  place  where 
winds  blow — "He  causeth  a  wind  to  blow  in  the 
heavens  ; "  in  both  cases  the  region  of  the  atmosphere. 
The  Biblical  writers  must,  therefore,  have  considered 
the  heavens  or  firmament  as  something  analogous  to  the 
air,  an  expanse,  or  ether,  not  a  hard  solid  vault. 

The  idea  of  expanse,  independent,  or  even  exclusive 
of  solidity,  is  also  to  be  inferred,  from  the  manner  in 
which  other  verbs  f  simply  signifying  to  extend  or 
spread  out^  are  applied  to  the  heavens :  as,  for  instance, 
Isaiah  xlviii.  13,  "My  right  hand  hath  spread  out  (tip- 
pechah)  the  heavens."     Isaiah  xl.  22,  "  That  stretcheth 

*  These  passages  also  give  tlic  true  meaning  of  the  words  in  Genesis  i. 
SO,  where  the  Authorized  Version  has,  "In  the  open  firmament  of  heaven," 
literally,  "upon  the  face  of  the  firinanient  of  heaven." 

t  The  verbs  n::3  Natah,  nr,72  Mathach,  and  HD'O  Taphach. 


E68ATY.]  THE  MOSAIC  PwECOKD  OF   CREATION.  257 

out  (noteli)  the  lieavcns  like  a  curtain  (literally,  like 
fineness),  and  spreadeth  them  out  (vaiyimtach)  as  a 
tent  to  dwell  in.  The  comparison  to  a  tent  does  not 
suggest  solidity — the  comparison  with  a  line  curtain 
excludes  it.  The  Ilehrew  word  (Dok)  here  used  for 
curtain,  is  cognate  with  Dalc^  "hne  dust,"  and  signifies, 
as  Gesenius  says,  "  Fineness — hence  fine  cloth,  a  gar- 
ment, a  curtain."  The  same  idea  of  something  unsolid, 
unpermanent,  and  movable,  is  conveyed  in  the  similar 
figure,  Ps.  civ.  2,  "  AV^'ho  stretchest  out  the  heavens  like 
a  curtain  [Yerihah]."  The  Hebrew  word  here  used 
for  curtain  means  "something  tremulous,"  and,  as 
Gesenius  gives  it,  ^''  a  curtain,  hanging,  so  called  from 
its  tremulous  motion  " — a  simile  most  unsuitable  for  a 
solid  vault,  most  appropriate  for  an  ethereal  expanse  or 
fluid. 

But  besides  RaMa  and  Shamaim,  there  is  another 
word,  Shechahim,  said  to  be  used  sometimes  for  heav- 
ens, which  also  excludes  the  idea  of  solidity.  Gesenius 
thus  gives  the  meaning:  "rO'^-  1-  Di('St,  fine  dust. 
Isai.  xl.  15 ;  2.  A  cloiid,  Arab.  thi7i  cloud,  pp.,  as  it 
would  seem,  cloud  of  dust,  or  the  like.  Mostly  in  plu- 
ral, clouds,  Metonym.  for  i\\Q  firmament,  the  heavens, 
the  slaj,  i.  q.  l^"]^^  and  r^pn,  comp.  in  English  the  clouds. 
Job  XXXV ii.  18,  '  Hast  thou  like  him  spread  out  the  shy 
(t=^irn'::),  %ohich  is  firm  like  a  molten  looking-glass  f '  " 
A  cloud  of  dust  is  nothing  solid,  and,  therefore,  when 
the  word  Shachak,  signifying  cloud  of  dust,  is  trans- 
ferred to  the  clouds  of  heaven,  it  implies  that,  in  the 
mind  of  him  that  transferred  it,  the  clouds  of  heaven 
are  also  devoid  of  solidity.  But  here  it  will  be  replied. 
In  the  passage  of  Job,  just  referred  to  by  Gesenius, 
"  the  sky  "  is  compared  to  a  molten  metallic  mirror — 
it  must,  therefore,  be  firm,  like  a  metal  plate.  Now, 
granting  for  a  moment  that  "  sky  "  is  here  a  possible 
translation,  the  conclusion  drawn  does  not  follow.  If 
the  sky  be  solid  and  firm,  and  able  to  bear  up  a  whole 
heavenly  ocean  of  water,  is  it  not  rather  a  descent  from 
the  poetic,  indeed  a  very  considerable  bathos,  to  com- 
pare its  strength  to  that  of  a  w^oman's  metal  mirror  i 


258  ^^'^^  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  Y. 

The  beauty  of  the  simile  is  lost.  Luther's  poetic  mind 
and  shrewd  common  sense  saw  this,  and,  therefore, 
wdien  there  was  no  dispute  about  the  matter,  showed 
that  here  there  is  a  contrast  rather  than  a  comparison. 
The  expanse,  he  says,  is  rarer  and  finer  than  the  atmos- 
phere in  which  we  live,  and  yet,  through  the  power  of 
the  Divine  word,  strong  as  if  it  were  metal.* 

Take  into  account  the  exact  meaning  of  ShechaJcim, 
clouds^  or  siihstances  imsolid  as  a  cloud  of  dust^  and  the 
beauty  and  force  of  the  figure  come  out  still  more 
strongly.  When,  therefore,  it  is  remembered  that  "  the 
Hebrews"  regarded  the  heavens  or  firmament  as  in- 
cludiug  the  place  where  birds  fiy — that  they  liken  it  to 
fineness  or  fine  cloth,  that  they  regard  it  as  tremulous, 
like  a  tremulous  curtain,  and  thought  that  it  was  of  the 
nature  of  the  clouds,  t=*ipn"i:j,  and  that  the  clouds  were 
of  the  nature  of  a  cloud  of  fine  dust,  and  might  be  called 
by  the  same  word,  it  will  be  seen  that  they  did  not  con- 
sider the  heavens  as  a  solid  vault,  but  as  an  ether  sim- 
ilar to  the  atmosphere. 

That  the  word  Rakia  signifies  exixmse  is  also  proved 
by  Jewish  tradition.  It  is  that  sense  which  appears 
when  the  Jews  began  to  write  lexicons  and  grammars, 
and  is  preserved  to  this  day.  David  Kimchi,  in  his 
Booh  of  Hoots ^  explains  the  word  Rctkali  first  by  Paras^ 
to  spread  out,  and  he  is  followed  by  both  Spanish  and 
German  Jews,  who  translate  Rakia  expanse. 

The  Jewish-Spanish  version  has  "Espandidura; " 
the  Jewish-German  "  Ausspreitung ;  "  the  Pentateuch 
by  Zunz,  Arnheim,  and  Sachs  gives  "  Ausdehnung." 
The  '  Jewish  School  and  Family  Bible,'  by  Dr.  Benisch, 
has  "  expanse."  At  the  revival  of  letters  Christians 
learned  Hebrew  from  the  Jews,  and  received  the  old 
Jewish  interpretation  "  expanse."  So  Yatablus  and 
Peter  Martyr  have  "  Sit  expansio  in  medio  aquarum." 
Calvin  has  both  extensio  and  expansio — "  Sit  extensioin 
medio  aquarum  .  .  .  .  et  fecit  Deus  expansionem  ; "  and 
so  Sebastian  ^Rlnnster,  Mercerus,  the  Geneva  French 
Bible  of  15SS,  Luke  Osiander,  1597,  and  Cypriano  de 

*  See  the  passage  quoted  below,  p.  250. 


Essay  v.]  THE  MOSAIC  EECOPwD  OF  CHEATION.  059 

Yalera,  1602.  ^vho  has  "  Sea  un  estcnclimiento  en  medio 
do  las  agiias."  And  Luther,  though  he  retained  the 
word  "  Yeste,"  answering  to  ''  firmament,"  exphiins  it 
as  a  line  and  subtile  expanse.  In  his  Commentary  to 
verse  G,  he  says,  "  God  takes  this  thick  and  shapeless 
lump  of  vapour,  nebcl  (nebula),  created  the  first  day  out 

of  nothing,  and  commands  it  to  spread  itself  out 

for  the  word  Ealda  signifies  among  the  Hebrews  some- 
thing extended  and  spread  out,  and  comes  from  Baka,, 
to  spread  out  ....  Avhen,  therefore,  Job  says,  xxxvii. 
18,  'The  heavens  are  made  firm  as  with  iron,'  he  lias 
respect  not  to  the  material,  but  to  the  Word,  which  can 
make  the  softest  thing  in  nature  into  the  strongest  and 

the  firmest for  Ve  know  how  subtile  the  air  is  in 

which  we  live.  .  .  .  Bnt  the  heaven  is  naturally  still 
more  subtile  and  thin.''  "^  Yatablns  gives  a  similar  ex- 
planation. Having  remarked  that  heaven  is  by  the 
Hebrews  sometimes  called  Shamaim^  sometimes  lialda^ 
he  says,  "  It  is  distinguished  into  two  parts,  the  upper 
part,  which  is  called  ether,  which  is  fire,  and  the  lower 
part,  which  is  called  air."  Calvin  (m  loc>j  gives  a  sim- 
ilar interpretation.  "  Moreover,  the  word  Rakia  com- 
prehends not  only  the  whole  region  of  the  air,  but  what- 
ever is  open  above  us,  as  the  word  heaven  is  sometimes 
understood  by  the  Latins."  Now,  it  is  to  be  remarked 
that  these  interpretations  were  given  when  the  old  sys- 
tem of  astronomy  was  still  in  fashion,  and  received  by 
those  who  give  these  interpretations,  as  the  Jewish 
Eabbis  and  the  Eeformers.  They  cannot  therefore  be 
accused  of  quibbling,  or  of  advocating  a  new  interpre- 
tation to  help  them  out  of  difficulties  arising  from  the 
discoveries  of  Copernicus  and  Galileo.  This  sense  con- 
tinued to  be  received  by  Hebrew  scholars  until  the  in- 
fection of  Deistic  infidelity  fully  influenced  the  minds 
of  men  to  make  out  a  case  of  ignorance  against  Moses 
and  the  Hebrews.  It  is  found  in  Mariana,  1G2^  ;  Ilot- 
tinger,  1659 ;  Seb.  Schmidt,  1697 ;  Baumgarten  and 
Eom.  Teller,  1U9 ;  J.  C.  F.  Schultz,  1783;  Dathius, 
1791 ;  Ilgen,  1798.     Even  in  the  first  edition  of  Gcsen- 

*  Luther's  '  Wcrkc'    Walch.  vol.  i. 


260  -^IDS  TO  FAITII.  [Essay  V. 

ius's  '  Lexicon,'  1810-13,  though  he  says  that  the  He- 
brews looked  upon  heaven  as  solid,  he  explains  rakia^ 
not  as  a  solid  expanse,  but  *'  Etwas  aiisgebreitetes."  In 
later  editions  he  -wavers,  sometimes  inserting,  sometimes 
omitting,  the  word  "  solid  "  or  "  firm."  * 

But,  it  may  be  asked,  if  such  be  the  Jewish  tradi- 
tion, how  the  LXX.  and  Vulgate  came  to  render  Hakia 
by  arepewfia,  firmamentuTn.  The  answer  is,  that  by 
o-repecofMa  the  LXX.  also  understood  a  fine  and  subtile 
etlier  which  held  the  heavenly  bodies  in  their  places. 
Stereoma  was  chosen  not  to  express  something  itself 
solid,  but  something  that  strengthened  or  made  firm 
the  heavenly  bodies.  They  took  the  word  in  the  tran- 
sitive sense,  like  ySeySatw/ia,  ^rjkwiiay  7r\rjp(DpLa,  &c.  ;  and 
this  is  proved  by  the  Yulgate  having  firmamentum^ 
which  form  of  word  signifies  something  that  makes 
firm,  like  ornamentum^  coinj^lemeiitiim^alimentum,  nion- 
iLmentuin^  &c.  In  this  sense  stereoma  is  elsewhere 
used  by  the  LXX.,  as  Ezek.  iv.  16 :  "I  will  break  the 
stafi"  of  bread,  o-repectj/xa  apTov ; "  and  Esther  ix.  29  : 
"And  the  confirmation  of  the  letter,  to  re  arepewfia  rrj^ 
eVfo-ToA,?)?."  And  again  Ps.  xviii.  3  :  "  The  Lord  is  my 
rock,  arepeafia  fiov,^^  where  the  Yulgate  has  firmamen- 
tum  meum.  That  Jerome  took  firmamentum  in  the 
same  sense  appears  from  his  Commentary  on  Isa.  xxvi. 
1,  where  for  bn,  hulwar}:^  Symmachus  has  crrepew/^a ; 
and  Jerome  remarks  :  "  Pro  eo  quod  nos  vertimus  ante- 
murccle^  Symmachus  firmamentum  interpretatus  est." 
And  again  on  Ezek.  iv.  16,  on  the  words  "  staff  of  bread  :  " 
"  Yerbum  Ilebraicum  Matteh  ])rima  Aquila3  editio  hacu- 
luin^  secunda  et  Symmachus  Tlieodotioque  G-repecoixa,  id 

*  In  the  '  German  Manual'  of  1823,  in  the  verb  5p^  we  find—" (1)  Stam- 

pfcnniitdenFiissen. .  . .  (2)  Stampfen,breitschlagcn,daher (o)Ausbrciten, 

aber  nur  von  festcn  Korpern.  .  .  .  Im  Syr.  bcfesticjcn,  griindcn."  In  the 
Latin  edition  of  1S33  it  is  not  found.  In  Robinson's  translation,  the  word 
"solid"  is  found  in  the  substantive,  but  not  in  the  verb.     The  reference  to 

the  Syriac  shows  that  the  idea  "  firm"  is  not  included :  Syr.  ^a? — firmavit, 

stabilivit,  Aph.  fundavit,  pertundendo  et  constipando  firmavit,  ut  faccre 
Solent,  qui  fundanionta,  adium  jaciunt."  According  to  this,  and  Gescnius  is 
right,  the  Syriac  word  does  not  mean  to  beat  out  or  ram  something  that  is 
solid  or  firm,  but  by  ramming  or  beating  to  make  firm  that  which  was  not 
firm  before. 


Essay  v.]  THE  MOSAIC  KECORD  OF  CliEATION.  261 

est  firmamtnium  interpretati  sunt."  The  Scptuagint 
adopted  the  word,  as  Le  Clerc  has  shown  in  his  Comnien- 
taiy,  from  the  Oriental  or  Chaldaic  philosophy  :  "  Ilinc 
cce'los  "s^'J^p'^  Bekihin^  et  iit  loqmintur  Grteci  eorum  inter- 
pretes,  o-repecofMa,  quod  inferiora  comijrimerent  ^cjir- 
mai'ent^  deosque  pra^sides  uniuscuj usque  coeli  ''Avo'xd<^ 
et  ^vvox^'^^^y  sustentatores  et  coaciores  appellabant."  He 
refers  in  proof  to  a  passage  in  Thomas  Stanley's  'His- 
tory of  Philosophy,'  in  which,  tliough  that  writer  calls 
stereoma  a  solid  orb,  yet  he  shows  that  this  stereoma 
was  of  a  nature  of  an  ethereal  fluid  :  "^  "  The  first  of  the 
corporeal  Avorkls  is  the  empyreal  (by  Empyraium  the 
Chaldseans  understood  not,  as  the  Christian  theologists, 
the  seat  of  God  and  the  blessed  spirits,  which  is  ratlier 
analogous  to  the  supreme  light  of  the  Chaldeeans,  but 
the  outward  sphere  of  the  corporeal  world).  It  is  round 
in  figure,  according  to  the  oracle,  '  enclosing  heaven  in 
a  round  figure.'  It  is  also  a  solid  orb,  or  firmament ; 
for  the  same  oracles  call  it  arepicofjLa.  It  consists  of 
fire,  w^hence  named  the  Empyreal,  or  as  the  oracles, 
tlie fiery  worlds  wdiicli  fire,  being  immediately  next  the 
incorporeal  supramundane  light,  is  the  rarest  and  sub- 
tilest  of  bodies,  and,  by  reason  of  this  subtilty,  pen- 
etrates into  the  cether,  which  is  the  next  world  below 
it,  and,  by  mediation  of  the  sether,  through  all  the  ma- 
terial world. 

"Chap.  xiv. — The  aether  is  a  fire  (as  its  name  im- 
plies) less  subtile  than  the  empyrseum  ;  for  the  empy- 
rjfium  penetrates  through  the  aether ;  yet  is  the  setlier 
itself  so  subtile  that  it  penetrates  through  the  material 
world.  The  second  a3thereal  world  is  the  sphere  of 
fixed  stars.  .  .  .  The  third  a3thcreal  world  is  that  of  the 
planetary  orb,  which  contains  the  sun,  moon,  and 
planets." 

According,  then,  to  this  meaning  of  stereoma  the 
word  gives  no  countenance  to  the  idea  that  the  firma- 
ment is  a  solid  vault,  capable  of  sustaining  an  ocean  of 
water  above  it.     On  the  contrary,  it  conveys  the  idea 

*  *  History  of  Philosophy,'  by  Thomas  Stanley.    Chaldaick  Philosophy, 
chap.  xiii. 


2(32  -^103  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  V. 

of  a  fine,  subtile  fluid  pervading  space,  and  agrees, 
therefore,  with  the  Biblical  usage,  which  makes  it  an 
expanse  extending  from  the  earth  to  the  heavenly 
bodies,  including  the  airy  space  in  which  Ijirds  fly. 

Having  thus  shown,  from  the  usage  of  the  Biblical 
writers,  the  uniformity  of  the  Jewish  tradition  and  the 
LXX.,  that  the  meaning  of  Itcikia  is  an  expanse,  not  a 
solid  vault,  the  fiction  of  "  an  ocean  of  water  above  it" 
falls  of  itself.  That  rests  upon  the  supposition  of  a 
"permanent  solid  vault,"  and  is  altogether  incompatible 
with  the  true  meaning  of  an  ethereal  expanse.  But  in- 
dependently of  this  incompatibility,  the  theory  of  "  an 
ocean"  above  the  firmament  is  a  mere  fiction.  There  is 
not  one  word  about  it  in  the  Bible.  The  sacred  text 
says  that  the  firmament  was  to  separate  the  w^aters  which 
were  under  the  firmament  from  the  waters  which  were 
above  the  firmament.  It  also  relates  the  gathering  to- 
gether of  the  waters  under  the  firmament  and  the  for- 
mation of  the  ocean,  but  it  says  not 'one  word  about  the 
gathering  together  of  the  waters  above  the  firmament 
into  an  ocean  or  reservoir;  that  is  pure  invention  of 
those  who  wish  to  burden  upon  "  the  Hebrews"  what 
the}^  are  entirely  innocent  of.*  Indeed  it  is  admitted  by 
Gesenius  and  others,  though  not  noticed  by  the  Essay- 
ist, that  the  Hebrews  knew  better,  and  were  acquainted 
with  the  true  origin  of  rain.  Gesenius  says  that  the 
Hebrew  poets  describe  a  firmament,  "  Super  quo  ocea- 
nus  coelestis  existat,  apertis  firmamenti  cancellis  pluvi- 
am  demittens  in  terram  (Gen.  i.  T,  vii.  11  ;  Ps.  civ.  3 ; 
cxlviii.  4)  vulgarem  nimirum  intuitionem  secuti,  licet 
vera  rerum  ratio  iis  minimo  incognita  sit."  (Yide  Gen. 
ii.  6 ;  Job  xxxvi.  27,  28.)  He  does  not  ascribe  the  fic- 
tion of  an  ocean  to  the  Hebrews  generally,  but  only  to 
the  poets  following  popular  notions.  It  is  therefore  im- 
fair  to  charge  it  upon  "  a  Hebrew  Descartes,"  who  must 
have  been  up  to  the  science  of  the  day. 

But  it  is  said  that  the  Hebrews  believed  that  heaven 
had  pillars  and  foundations,  that  there  were  windows 
and  doors  in  licaven,  on  the  opening  of  which  the  rain 
descended.     With  equal  reason  might  these  wise  inler- 


Essay  Y.]  THE  MOSAIC  UECOKD  OF  CREATION.  0(53 

preters  say  that  the  Hebrews  believed  tliat  tliere  were 
bottles  in  heaven,  and  that  the  celestial  ocean,  or  part 
of  it,  was  first  bottled  off  before  the  earth  could  be  sup- 
plied with  rain,  or  that  ''  the  waters  are  bound  up  in  a 
garment*''  (Prov.  xxx.  4),  or  that  the  ocean  has  bars  and 
doors  (Job  xxxviii.  10,  IT),  or  that  the  shadow  of  deatli 
and  the  womb  have  doors  (Job  iii.  10),  for  all  these  are 
spoken  of.  If  these  are  figurative,  so  are  the  windows 
and  doors  of  heaven.  As  in  Job  xxxviii.  37,  ^'Wlio 
can  number  the  clouds  in  wisdom  ?  or  who  can  stay  the 
bottles  of  heaven?"  bottles  are  parallel  to  and  explained 
by  "  clouds  ; "  so  in  Ps.  Ixxviii.  23,  there  is  a  similar 
explanatory  parallelism — "  Though  He  liad  commanded 
the  clouds  from  above,  and  opened  the  doors  of  heav- 
en ;  "  and  few  children  in  a  Sunday  or  National  school 
would  take  bottles  or  doors  literally.  The  common 
people  are  not  so  dull  as  Gesenius  and  some  other  intel- 
lectual w^onders  of  the  day  think.  Who  ever  met  a 
rustic,  accustomed  to  look  at  the  heavens,  who  thought 
it  was  a  solid  vault,  and  that  the  stars  were  fixed  in 
like  nails  ?  The  common  people  are  not  so  silly  :  they 
judge  by  what  they  see.  They  do  not  see  a  solid  vault, 
but  they  see  the  lark  and  the  eagle  soaring  aloft  in  the 
air,  and  they  think  that  all  beyond  is  just  alike.  They 
never  dream  of  a  solid  obstacle  in  the  way.  That  solid 
vault  savours  much  more  of  the  fancy  of  the  poet  add- 
ing a  trait  of  grandeur  to  a  description,  or  of  the  school 
of'the  philosopher  inventing  a  theory  to  account  for  the 
motions  of  the  heavenly  bodies,  than  of  the  practical 
common  sense  of  the  common  people.  The  most  uned- 
ucated know  very  well  the  connexion  between  clouds 
and  rain,  and  in  this  the  Hebrews  were  not  behind  other 
people.  The  two  passages  pointed  out  by  Gesenius — • 
Gen.  ii.  6,  and  Job.  xxxvi.  27,  28— prove  that  the  He- 
brews knew  the  connexion  between  evaporation  and 
rain,  especially  the  latter.  "For  he  maketh  small  the 
drops  of  wmter ;  they  pour  down  rain  according  to  the 
vapour  thereof,  which  the  clouds  do  drop  and  distil 
upon  man  abundantly."  The  Hebrew  language  has  va- 
rious words  for  "cloud"  or  "clouds";    they  arc  all 


254  ^1^3  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  V. 

found  in  connexion  with  rain.  Tims,  Gen.  ix.  :  "  Wlien 
I  bring  a  cloud,  ')3r,  over  the  earth,  my  bow  shall  be 
seen  in  the  cloud."  The  clouds  might  excite  apprehen- 
sion of  another  deluge ;  the  bow  dispels  it.  Deborah 
was  able  to  tell  how,  when  the  Lord  went  out  of  Seir, 
"  the  earth  trembled,  and  the  heavens  dropped  (dis- 
tilled) ;  the  clouds,  a'^ssJ,  also  dropped  water."  (Judges 
v.  4.)  In  1  Kings  xviii.  44,  45,  the  little  cloud,  s?,  rising 
from  the  sea,  was  recognized  by  Elijah  as  a  sign  of  com- 
ing rain  ;  and  when  the  heavens  were  black  with  clouds 
and  wind,  "  a  great  rain"  followed.  Solomon  says 
(Prov.  iii.  20),  "  By  his  knowledge  the  depths  are  bro- 
ken up,  and  the  clouds,  d^pn^,  drop  down  dew,"  which 
reads  very  like  a  commentary  upon  Gen.  vii.  11,  "the 
fountains  of  the  great  deep  w^ere  broken  np,  and  the 
windows  of  heaven  were  opened."  These  are  only  a 
few  specimens  of  the  many  passages  that  bear  npon  the 
subject;  but  sufficient  to  show  that  "the  Hebrews" 
knew  very  well  that  rain  did  not  come  from  a  celestial 
ocean,  through  windows  and  doors,  nor  ^^et  from  bottles 
in  the  heavens,  but  from  the  clouds.  Indeed,  the  con- 
nexion between  the  two  furnished  materials  for  the 
proverb,  "  Clouds,  c'^x'itjs,  and  wind,  and  no  rain  ;  such 
is  the  man  whose  promise  of  a  gift  is  a  lie."  (Prov. 
XXV.  14.) 

But  though  there  be  no  ocean  above  the  firmament, 
may  there  not  have  been,  may  there  not  still  be,  waters 
above  the  firmament?  Such  was  the  opinion  of  the 
learned  F.  Yon  Meyer,  adopted  by  Kurtz  in  his  first 
edition  of  'Bible  and  Astronomy,'  and  lately  advo- 
cated by  Delitsch.  That  such  a  supposition  is  not  un- 
scientific, appears  from  Dr.  Whewell's  'Theory  of  the 
Solar  System': — "The  planets  exterior  to  Mars,  Ju- 
piter and  Saturn  especially,  as  the  best  known  of  them, 
appear,  by  the  best  judgment  which  we  can  form,  to  be 
spheres  of  water  and  of  aqueous  vapour,  combined,  it 
may  be,  with  atmospheric  air  .  .  .  Can  we  see  any 
physical  reason  for  the  fact ,  which  appears  to  us  prob- 
able, that  all  the  water  and  vapour  of  the  system  is 
gathered  in  its  outward  parts  ?     It  would  seem  that  we 


Essay  v.]  TUE  MOSAIC  EECOKD  OF  CREATION.  265 

can.  Water  and  aqncons  vapour  are  driven  off  and 
retained  at  a  distance  by  any  other  source  of  heat.  .  .  . 
It  was,  then,  agreeable  to  the  general  scheme,  that  the 
excess  of  water  and  vapour  should  be  packed  into  ro- 
tating masses,  such  as  are  Jupiter  and  Saturn,  Uranus 
and  Neptune.  .  .  .  And  thus  the  vapoui-,  which  would 
otherwise  have  wandered  loose  about  the  atmosphere, 
was  neatly  wound  into  balls,  which  again  were  kept  in 
their  due  place  by  being  made  to  revolve  in  nearly  cir- 
cular orbits  about  the  sun."  Perhaps,  when  science 
knows  a  little  more  about  the  ethereal  medium  whicli 
mis  space,  and  in  wliich  the  heavenly  bodies  move,  it 
may  also  learn  something  more  about  "  this  water  and 
aqueous  vapour,"  and  be  better  able  to  understand  the 
Mosaic  statement  about  the  waters  above  the  firma- 
ment. But,  however  that  be.  Biblical  usage,  Jewish 
tradition,  the  reason  that  moved  the  LXX.  to  adopt 
stereoma^  and  the  Yulgate  finaamentuon^  the  current 
of  Protestant  interpretation  until  a  recent  date,  concur 
in  proving  that  "  the  Hebrews"  did  not  believe  in  a 
solid  heaven,  like  the  brass  or  iron  heaven  of  the  liea- 
thens,  but  in  an  expanse  of  something  like  the  atmos- 
pheric air."^  This  is  not  contrary,  but  rather  agreeable 
to  the  discoveries  of  modern  science,  which  attributes 
the  retardation  of  the  heavenly  bodies  to  some  resisting 
medium,  and  light  to  the  undulations  of  some  subtile 
Huid. 

10.  Yekse  27.  Creation  of  one  human  "pair. — Tliis 
subject  has  been  so  fully  discussed  by  Prichard  that  it 
is  not  necessary  to  enter  upon   it  here.f     It  may  be 

*  The  threat,  Levit.  xxvi,  10,  "  I  will  make  jonr  heaven  like  the  iron,  and 
your  earth  Uke  the  brass,"  also  shows  that  the  Ilcbrews  as  little  looked  upon 
the  heavens  as  hard  and  solid,  as  they  believed  the  earth  to  be  brass. 

t  Prichard  sums  up  his  arojument  thus : — "  On  the  whole  it  appears  that 
the  information  deduced  from  this  fourth  method  of  inquiry  is  as  satisfactory 
as  we  could  expect,  and  is  sufficient  to  confirm,  and  indeed  by  itself  to 
establish,  the  inference  that  the  human  kind  contains  but  one  species,  and 
therefore,  by  a  second  inference,  but  one  race.  It  will,  I  apprehend,  be  al- 
lowed by  those  who  have  attentively  followed  this  invcstit^ation  of  particulars, 
that  the  diversities  in  physical  character  belonging  to  dillbrent  races  present 
no  material  obstacle  to  the  opinion  that  all  nations  sprang  from  one  original, 
a  result  which  plainly  follows  from  the  foregoing  consideration."  ('  Re- 
searches into  the  Physical  History  of  Mankind,'  by  James  Cowlcs  Pricliard, 
M.D.,  vol.  ii.  p.  589.) 
12 


266  ^^^^  TO  FAixn.  [Essatv. 

well,  however,  to  notice  a  statement  in  '  Essays  and 
Reviews'  which  says  that  the  original  formation  of  only 
one  pair  of  human  beings  is  taught  only  in  the  second 
chapter,  and  not  in  the  first.  *'  Man  is  said  to  have 
been  created  male  and  female,  and  the  narrative  con- 
tains nothing  to  show  that  a  single  pair  only  is  in- 
tended." *  ''It  is  in  the  second  narrative  of  creation 
that  the  formation  of  a  single  man  out  of  the  dust  of 
the  earth  is  described,  and  the  omission  to  create  a  fe- 
male at  the  same  time  is  stated  to  have  been  repaired 
by  the  subsequent  formation  of  one  from  the  side  of 
the  man." — Note  in  'Essays  and  Eeviews,'  p.  222. 
But  the  text  in  Gen.  i.,  if  carefully  examined,  proves 
that  only  one  pair  of  human  beings  is  intended,  and 
that  the  formation  of  the  two  was  not  simultaneous. 
In  verse  26  we  read,  "  And  God  said,  Let  us  make  man 
(Adam  without  article)  in  our  image,  after  our  like- 
ness, and  let  them  have  dominion,"  etc.  Here  the  lan- 
guage is  indefinite.  It  refers  to  the  whole  human  race. 
But  then  follows,  "And  God  created  the  man  (Adam, 
with  the  article)  in  his  image,  in  the  image  of  God 
created  He  him :  male  and  female  created  He  them." 
Here  the  language  is  definite,  "the  man,"  and  in  the 
first  half  of  the  verse  the  pronoun  is  in  the  singular 
number,  and  the  masculine  gender,  "  In  the  image  of 
God  created  He  him."  If  the  author  had  intended 
briefly  to  have  stated  that  at  first  only  one  human  be- 
ing, and  that  one  the  male,  was  created,  what  other 
language  could  he  have  employed?  Then,  having 
spoken  in  the  singular  number,  and  the  masculine  gen- 
der, he  as  briefly  but  clearly  describes  the  subsequent 
distinction  into  sexes.  "  Male  and  female  created  He 
them."  The  plan  of  this  chapter  forbade  his  entering 
into  tlie  detail  of  the  creation  of  woman,  just  as  much 
as  it  hindered  him  from  describing  the  varieties  of 
herbs  or  trees,  or  fowls  or  fishes,  or  of  beasts  of  the 
earth  and  cattle.  As  he  merely  says  that  God  created 
them,  so  here,  after  the  mention  of  "  the  man, "  he 
just  notices  tlie  fact  that  God  created  tliem  male  and 

■"  Cf.  *  Essays  and  Reviews.' 


Essay  v.]  THE  MOSxlIC  KECOED  OF  CliEATION.  2C7 

female ;  biU  in  that  very  notice  lie  implies  tliiit  tlierc  is 
something  peculiar,  for  with  regard  to  fish  or  beasts  or 
cattle  heVioes  not  mention  that^God  created  them  male 
and  female,  or,  as  it  may  be  rendered,  "  a  male  and  a 
female."  With  regard  to  man,  short  as  is  the  notice, 
he  does  relate,  first,  that  "  in  the  image  of  God  created 
He  him,"  that  is,  one  male ;  and  then  "  male  and  fe- 
male created  He  them."  Even  according  to  the  opin- 
ion of  those  who  make  the  first  and  second  chapters 
of  Genesis  two  accounts,  written  by  two  authors,  the 
fifth  chapter  was  written  by  the  author  who  wrote 
the  first  chapter  (the  Elohist,  as  they  say).  But  in  the 
fifth  chapter  the  creation  of  one  pair  only  is  plainly 
implied.  "  This  is  the  book  of  the  generations  of  Adam. 
In  the  day  that  God  created  Adam,  in  the  likeness  of 
God  created  He  him ;  male  and  female  created  He 
them ;  and  blessed  them,  and  called  their  name  Adam, 
in  the  day  when  they  were  created.  And  Adam  lived 
an  hundred  and  thirty  years,"  etc.  In  all  this  Adam 
is  one  person,  and  yet  the  first  and  second  verses  are  a 
recapitulation  of  chapter  i.  26,  27,  in  the  very  words 
of  those  verses.  Therefore  in  i.  27,  the  author  took 
Adam  as  one  individual  male  human  being,  as  Knobel 
fairly  admits  in  his  commentary  on  chap.  v.  1-5  : — 

"  Adam  is  here  a  proper  name,  as  iii.  17 The 

author  designedly  repeats  the  statements  of  i.  27,  28,  as 
his  purpose  is  here  to  narrate  how  the  first  human  pair 
propagated  the  species  by  generation,  and  brought  forth 
children  of  the  same  form  which  they  themselves  had 

received  at  the  creation  from  God The  passage 

teaches  that  the  Elohist,  who  here  attributes  to  his 
Adam  the  begetting  of  a  son  in  his  130th  year,  also 
believed  in  one  first  human  pair,  tliongh  in  i.  26  he  had 
not  plainly  said  so." 

On  this  point,  therefore,  there  is  no  discrepancy 
between  the  first  and  second  chapters.  The  first  chap- 
ter, as  is  proved  by  v.  26,  27,  relates,  first,  the  creation 
of  Adam,  and  then  mentions  the  distinction  of  male  and 
female.  The  second  chapter  gives  the  particulars,  first, 
of  the  creation  of  Adam,  then  of  the  creation  of  Eve. 


268  -A-IDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  V. 

17.  Thus  a  comparison  of  the  actual  statements  of 
Moses  with  the  discoveries  and  conclusions  of  modern 
science  is  so  far  from  shaking,  that  it  confirms  om-  faith 
in  the  accuracy  of  the  sacred  narrative.  We  are  as- 
tonished to  see  how  the  Hebrew  Prophet,  in  his  brief 
and  rapid  outline  sketched  3000  years  ago,  has  antici- 
pated some  of  the  most  wonderful  of  recent  discoveries, 
and  can  ascribe  the  accuracy  of  his  statements  and  lan- 
guage to  nothing  but  inspiration.  Moses  relates  how 
God  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth  at  an  indefinitely 
remote  period  before  the  earth  was  the  habitation  of 
man — geology  has  lately  discovered  the  existence  of  a 
long  prehuman  period.  A  comparison  with  other  scrip- 
tures shows  that  the  "  heavens  "  of  Moses  include  the 
abode  of  angels,  and  the  place  of  the  fixed  stars,  which 
existed  before  the  earth.  Astronomy  ^^oints  out  remote 
worlds,  whose  light  began  its  journey  long  before  the 
existence  of  man.  Moses  declares  that  the  earth  was 
or  became  covered  with  water,  and  was  desolate  and 
empty.  Geology  has  found  by  investigation  that  the 
primitive  globe  was  covered  with  an  uniform  ocean, 
and  that  there  was  a  long  azoic  period,  during  which 
neither  plant  nor  animal  could  live.  Moses  states  that 
there  w^as  a  time  when  the  earth  was  not  dependent 
upon  the  sun  for  light  or  heat,when,  therefore,  there  could 
be  no  climatic  dilferences.  Geology  has  lately  verified 
this  statement  by  finding  tropical  plants  and  animals 
scattered  over  all  parts  of  the  earth.  Moses  afiirms 
that  the  sun,  as  well  as  the  moon,  is  only  a  light-holder. 
Astronomy  declares  that  the  sun  itself  is  a  non-luminous 
body,  dependent  for  its  light  on  a  luminous  atmosphere. 
Moses  asserts  that  the  earth  existed  before  the  sun  was 
given  as  a  luminary.  Modern  science  proposes  a  theory 
which  explains  how  this  was  possible.  Moses  asserts 
that  there  is  an  expanse  extending  from  earth  to  dis- 
tant heights,  in  which  the  heavenly  bodies  are  placed. 
Recent  discoveries  lead  to  the  supposition  of  some  sub- 
tile fluid  medium  in  which  they  move.  Moses  de- 
scribes the  process  of  creation  as  gradual,  and  mentions 
the  order  in  whicli  living  things  appeared,  plants,  fishes. 


Essay  v.]  THE  MOSAIC  KECOKD  OF  CREATION.  269 

fowls,  land- animals,  man.  By  the  study  of  nature  geol- 
ogy has  arrived  independently  at  the  same  conclusion. 
Where  did  Moses  get  all  this  knowledge  ?  How  was  it 
that  he  worded  his  rapid  sketch  with  such  scientific 
accuracy  ?  If  he  in  his  day  possessed  the  knowledge 
which  genius  and  science  have  attained  only  recently, 
that  knowledge  is  superhuman.  If  he  did  not  possess 
the  knowledge,  then  his  pen  must  have  been  guided  by 
superhuman  "vvisdom.  Faith  has,  therefore,  nothing  to 
fear  from  science.  So  far  the  records  of  nature,  fairly 
studied  and  rightly  interpreted,  have  proved  the  most 
valuable  and  satisfying  of  all  commentaries  upon  the 
statements  of  Scripture.  The  ages  required  for  geo- 
logical development,  the  infinity  of  worlds  and  the  im- 
mensity of  space  revealed  by  astronom}^,  illustrate,  as 
no  other  note  or  comment  has  ever  done,  the  Scripture 
doctrines  of  the  eternit}^,  the  omnipotence,  the  wisdom 
of  the  Creator.  Let  then  Science  pursue  her  boundless 
course,  and  multiply  her  discoveries  in  the  heavens 
and  in  the  earth.  The  believer  is  persuaded  that  they 
wall  only  show  more  clearly  that  "  the  Avords  of  the 
Lord  are  pure  words,  as  silver  tried  in  a  furnace  of 
fire,  purified  seven  times."  Let  Criticism  also  continue 
her  profoundly  interesting  and  important  work.  Let 
her  explore,  sift,  analyse,  scrutinize,  with  all  her  pow- 
ers, the  documents,  language,  and  contents  of  Scripture, 
and  honestly  tell  us  the  results.  Since  the  day  w^hen 
Laurentius  Yalla  exposed  the  fiction  of  the  Imperial 
donation,  she  has  contributed  much  to  the  removal  of 
error,  and  the  advancement  of  literary,  patristic,  and 
historic  truth ;  and  Divine  revelation  has  also  been 
illustrated  by  her  labours.  It  might  be  shown  that 
even  the  hostile  and  sceptical  have  involuntarily  helped 
in  the  confirmation  of  the  Christian  verity,  and  that 
even  their  labours  cannot  be  neglected  without  loss. 
But  the  student  must  carefully  distinguish  between  the 
speculations  of  individuals  and  the  ascertained,  settled 
results  of  criticism.  The  theory  of  any  one  individual, 
however  learned,  laborious,  and  genial,  is  only  an  opin- 
ion, perliaps  only  one  of  a  chaos  of  confiicting  opinions, 


270  -^I^S  TO  FAITU.  [Essay  V. 

wliere  sound  criticism  lias  found  no  sure  footing.  The 
settled  results  are  those  which,  after  severe  testing,  have 
been  unanimously  accepted  by  the  competent,  the 
sober,  and  the  judicious.  The  former  may  be  popular 
for  ft  while,  and  seem  to  shake  the  faith  ;  but  they  are 
gradually  overthrown  by  the  progress  of  critical  in- 
vestigation, and  take  their  place  in  the  record  of  things 
that  were.  The  history  of  the  last  hundred  years,  since 
modern  criticism  took  its  rise,  is  sufficient  to  quiet  the 
believer's  mind  as  to  the  ultimate  result.  It  tells  of 
tlieor^^  after  theory,  propounded  by  tlie  critics  of  tlie 
day,  first  applauded,  then  controverted,  then  rejected, 
just  like  the  philosophic  systems  of  the  same  period, 
and  yet  a  gradual  advance  from  anti-Christian  hostility 
to  an  effort  after  scientific  impartiality,  and  a  large 
amount  of  positive  gain  for  the  right  interpretation  of 
Scripture  and  the  confirmation  of  the  old  Christian 
belief.  Faith,  therefore,  feels  no  more  fear  of  Criticism 
than  of  Science,  being  assured  that  neither  can  "  do 
anything  against  the  truth,  but  for  the  truth." 


ESSAY    VI. 

ox  THE  GENUIKENESS  AND  AUTHENTICITY  OF  THE 
PENTATEUCH, 


CONTENTS  OF  ESSAY  YI. 


1.  Historic  character  of  Christianity- 

attacks  upon  it — grounds  of  the  at- 
tacks lie  in  specuiaiion  rather  than 
in  discovery. 

2.  The  Pentateuch  especially  assailed — 

object  of  the  paper,  to  defend  (a) 
the  genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch, 
an  {0)  its  authenticity. 
8.  First  argument  in  favour  of  the  gen- 
uineness, the  fact  that  the  work  has 
come  to  us  under  the  name  of  Mo- 
ses. 

4.  Second  argument,  from    the  archaic 

character  of  the  narrative  and  of  the 
language. 

5.  Third  argument,   from  the  intimate 

acquaintance  with  Egypt  shown  by 
the  author. 

6.  Fourth    argument,  from  the  knowl- 

edge which  he  displays  of  the  Sina- 
itic  peninsula  and  of  the  old  races 
inhabiting  Canaan. 
1.  Fifth  argument,  from  the  fact  that 
the  Pentateuch  professes  to  be  the 
work  of  Moses — the  fact  admitted 
by  Eationalists. 

8.  Sixth    argument,  from    the  uniform 

and  consistent  witness  of  the  ear- 
liest Jewish  writers. 

9.  Seventh    argument,    from  the  testi- 

mony of  the  Heathen. 

10.  Objection  of  DeTVette,  from  the  liter- 

ary perfection  of  the  work,  answer- 
ed—Perfection not  so  great  as  sup- 
posed—  Actual  literary  merit  not 
very  surprising. 

11.  Objection    from   particular  passages, 

.said  to  imply  a  later  date — First  an- 
swer. 

12.  Second  answer. 

13.  Objection   from  the  supposed  intro- 

duction of  the  Levitical  system  at  a 
time  long  subsequent  to  Moses — 
Grounds  of  the  objection  disproved. 


14.  Mosaic  authorship  not  having  been 

disproved,  no  need  to  examine  the 
other  theories  of  the  authorship- 
number  of  such  theories  very  great. 

15.  Importance  of  proving  the  genuine- 

ness. 

16.  Explanation  of  the    exact   sense  in 

which  it  is  maintained  that  Moses 
was  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch. 

17.  Authenticity  of  the    Pentateuch  as- 

sailed on  six  principal  points. — I. 
The  Chronolog}',  which  is  regarded 
as  too  narrow — (a)  on  account  of 
the  supposed  early  foundation  of  a 
monarchy  in  Egypt — (&)  on  account 
of  the  time  requisite  for  the  forma- 
tion of  language.  Examination  of 
these  two  arguments. — II.  The  Flood 
thought  to  have  been  partial,  from 
the  absence  of  a  universal  tradition 
of  it — The  tradition  proved  to  be,  in 
one  sense,  universal.— III.  The  Eth- 
nology of  Gen.  X.  regarded  as  incor- 
rect— Proofs  of  its  correctness  on 
the  points  to  which  exception  has 
been  taken. — lY.  The  early  chapters 
of  Genesis  regarded  as  mythic — (a) 
on  account  of  the  resemblance  of 
the  two  genealogies  of  the  Cain- 
ites  and  the  Sethites— (^)  on  ac- 
count of  the  significance  of  the  names 
employed — (c)  on  account  of  the  fact 
that  the  early  history  of  other 
nations  uniformly  runs  up  into 
myth— Examination  of  these  argu- 
ments.— V.  The  longevity  of  the 
Patriarchs  considered  to  be  impos- 
sible— Possibility  not  denied  by 
physiology— Fact  of  longevity  strong- 
ly attested  by  history. — VI.  The 
time  assigned  to  the  sojourn  in 
Egypt  supposed  to  be  incorrect— (</) 
as  being  insufficient  for  the  immense 
increase  in  the  numbers  of  the  Isra- 
elites—(^)  as  being  exactly  double 
of  the  preceding  period — Examina- 
tion of  these  arguments. 
IS.  Summary. 


ON   THE   GENUINENESS   AND   AUTHEN- 
TICITY   OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 


'  AoKct  ovv  ttKuov  f)  t5  T^ixicrv  rod  iravThs  duai  7;  apxh-^ — ARISTOTLE. 

1.  CiiKisTiANiTY  is  an  historic  religion.  It  claims 
to  be  a  reasonable  belief;  but  it  does  not  base  itself 
npon  Eeason.  Its  foundation  is  laid  on  tlie  rock  of 
Fact.  God's  actual  dealings  with  the  world  from  its 
creation  to  the  full  establishment  of  the  Christian 
Church  constitute  its  subject  matter,  and  form  the 
ground  ont  of  which  its  doctrines  spring.  The  mystic 
spirit,  which,  despising  the  grossness  and  materiality 
of  facts,  seeks  to  form  to  itself  a  sublimated  and  ideal- 
ized religion  in  which  events  and  occurrences  shall 
have  no  place,  leaves  the  fixed  and  stable  land  to  lloat 
off  upon  an  interminable  ocean  of  shifting  and  chang- 
ing fancies,  substituting  in  reality  for  the  truth  of  God 
the  mere  thoughts,  feelings,  and  opinions  of  the  indi- 
vidual. If  we  are  to  maintain  a  Faith  worth}^  of  the 
name,  we  must  plant  our  feet  firmly  on  the  solid  ground 
of  historic  fact,  and  not  allow  ourselves  to  be  shaken 
from  that  ground  by  unproved  assertions,  however 
boldly  made,  or  however  often  repeated.  We  must 
give  little  heed  to  doubts,  which  may  readily  be  started 
in  connexion  with  any  narrative,  and  demand  of  those 
who  attack  our  belief,  not  mere  ingenious  speculations 
as  to  the  past,  but  proof  that  the  authoritative  account, 
which  has  come  down  to  us  as  part  and  parcel  of  our 
religion,  and  which  even  they  profess  after  a  certain 
sort  to  venerate,  is  devoid  of  literal  truth,  before  we 
follow  them  in  their  endeavours  to  extract  from  the 
record  some  other  sort  of  truth — not  "rigidly  historic"* 

*  Bunsen,  'Egypt's  Place  in  Universal  History,'  vol.  iv.  p.  383. 
12^ 


274  -^11^3  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  VI. 

— ^but  ideiil,  2)octic,  symbolical.  "Wc  need  not,  we  must 
not,  slmt  our  ejcs  to  any  new  discoveries,  be  they  sci- 
entific or  historical ;  but  we  are  bound  to  examine  the 
so-called  discoveries  narrowly,  to  see  exactly  to  what 
they  amount,  and  then  to  ask  ourselves,  "  Do  they  pos- 
itively conflict  w4th  the  plain  historic  sense  of  Scrip- 
ture or  no  ? "  If  they  do,  it  will  become  a  question 
(when  the  presumed  discovery  is  historical)  of  relative 
credibility.  The  witnesses  contradict  one  another — 
whicli  of  them  shall  w^e  believe  ?  But  more  often  it 
will  be  found  that  there  is  no  such  contradiction — that 
all  which  the  discoveries  have  established^  is  compati- 
ble with  the  Scriptural  narrative,  and  that  the  contra- 
diction arises  only  where  the  conjectures  and  hypothe- 
ses of  speculative  minds  have  been  superadded  to  the 
facts  with  which  they  profess  to  deal.  Where  this  is 
the  case,  there  need  be  no  hesitation.  "  Yea,  let  God 
be  true,  and  every  man  a  liar ! "  Human  speculations 
and  conjectures,  once  seen  to  be  such,  cannot  trouble 
the  faith  of  a  Christian  man.  Facts  are  stubborn  things, 
and  rightly  command  our  respect ;  hypotheses  are  airy 
nothings,  and  may  safely  be  disregarded  and  despised. 

2.  Among  the  numerous  attempts  made  to  disturb 
men's  faith  in  the  present  day,  few  have  seemed  more 
plausible,  or  have  met  with  a  greater  amount  of  success, 
than  those  which  have  grouped  themselves  about  the 
Pentateuch,  the  foundation  stone  on  whicli  the  rest  of 
the  Bible  is  built.  The  genuineness  of  the  work,  though 
it  has  not  lacked  defenders,*  has  been  pertinaciously 
denied,  both  in  Germany  and  in  America ;  while  the 
authenticity  of  the  narrative  has  been  assailed  in  vari- 
ous respects.  It  will  be  the  aim  and  object  of  the  pres- 
ent paper  to  show,  first,  that  there  is  no  sufficient  reason 
to  doubt  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch,  and, 
secondly,  that  there  are  no  sufficient  historical  grounds 
for  questioning  the  authenticity  of  the  narrative. 

3.  It  is  a  general  rule  of  literary  criticism  that,  ex- 

*  See  especially  the  work  of  Jahn,  '  Acchthcit  des  Pentatenchs,'  and  Ila 
vernick's  more  recent '  Eiuleitung,'  which  has  been  translated  for  Clarke's 
'  Theological  Library.' 


E39ATVI.]  THE  TENTATEUCU.  275 

j  cept  for  special  reasons,  books  are  to  be  assigned  to  the 
P"  I  authors  whose  names  they  bear.  In  profane  literature 
this  rule  is  considered  sufficient  to  determine  the  au- 
thorship of  ninety-nine  out  of  every  hundred  volumes 
in  our  libraries.  Most  men,  who  write  works  of  any 
importance,  claim  them  during  their  lifetime  ;  their 
claim,  if  undisputed,  is  accepted  by  tlie  world  at  large ; 
and  nothing  is  more  difficult  than  to  change  the  belief, 
which  is  thus  engendered,  subsequently.  Every  w^ork 
therefore  which  comes  down  to  ns  as  the  production  of 
a  particular  author  is  to  be  accepted  as  his  production, 
unless  strong  grounds  can  be  produced  to  the  contrary. 
The  onus  prohandi  lies  wdth  the  person  who  denies  the 
genuineness ;  and,  unless  the  arguments  adduced  in 
proof  are  very  weighty,  the  fact  of  reputed  authorship 
ought  to  overpower  them.  Sound  criticism  has  gener- 
ally acquiesced  in  this  canon.  It  raises  an  important 
presumption  in  favour  of  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the 
JPentateuch,  anterior  to  any  proof  of  the  fact  to  be  de- 
rived from  internal  evidence,  or  from  the  testimony  of 
those  who  had  special  opportunities  of  knowing. 

4.  The  internal  evidence  in  favour  of  the  Mosaic 
authorship  is,  briefly,  the  following : — The  book  is  ex- 
actly such  a  one  as  a  writer  of  the  age,  character,  and 
circumstances  of  Moses  might  be  expected  to  produce. 
Its  style  is  archaic.  The  reader,  even  of  the  English 
version,  feels  that  he  is  here  brought  into  contact  with 
a  greater  simplicity,  a  more  primitive  cast  of  thought 
and  speech,  than  he  meets  with  in  any  of  the  other 
sacred  writings.  Tho  life  described,  the  ideas,  the  char- 
acters, have  about  them  the  genuine  air  of  primitive 
antiquity.  The  student  of  the  original  observes  that 
the  very  words  themselves,  the  constructions,  the  gram- 
matical forms,  bear  similar  traces  of  a  remote  author- 
ship, being  often  such  as  had  become  obsolete  even 
before  the  composition  of  the  Book  of  Joshua.*  It  is 
impossible  to  exhibit  this  argument  popularly  in  the 


*  See  Jahn  in  Bengcl's  '  Archiv,'  vol.  ii.,  pp.  578  ct  seqq. ;  and  Fritzschc, 
•Aechtheit  der  Biicher  Mosis,'  pp.  174  et  seqq.  Compare  also  Marsh's  'Au- 
thenticity of  the  Five  Books  of  Moses,'  pp.  G  et  seqq 


276  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [EesATYI. 

present  condition  of  Hebrew  scliolarsliip  among  us. 
Its  weight,  however,  is  sufficiently  shown  by  the  pres- 
sure which  it  has  exerted  upon  the  controversy  in  Ger- 
many, where  the  opponents  of  the  Mosaic  authorship 
are  constrained  to  allow  that  a  considerable  number  of 
"  archaisms  "  do  in  fact  exist  in  the  Pentateuch,  and  to 
account  for  them  by  the  supposition  that  genuine  Mo- 
saic documents  were  in  the  hands  of  its  ''  compiler," 
from  which  he  adojDted  the  forms  and  words  in  ques- 
tion !  *  This  is  surely  about  as  probable  as  that  a  mod- 
ern French  author,  who  made  use  of  Froissart  among 
his  materials,  should  adopt  his  spelling,  and  form  his 
sentences  after  his  type. 

5.  Again,  the  writer  shows  a  close  acquaintance 
with  Egypt,  its  general  aspect,  its  history,  geography, 
manners,  customs,  productions,  and  language,  which 
would  be  natural  to  one  so  circumstanced  as  Moses, 
but  w^hich  cannot  be  shown  to  belong  naturally,  or  even 
probably,  to  any  later  Israelite,  down  to  the  time  of 
Jeremiah.  No  doubt  there  w^as  extensive  commercial 
and  political  intercourse  between  Egypt  and  Judea  in 
the  age  of  Solomon,  and  in  the  later  period  of  the  Jew- 
ish kingdom ;  but  such  intercourse,  even  if  direct  (of 
which  we  have  no  proof),  would  fail  to  give  that  exact 
historic  knowledge  of  what  would  then  have  become  a 
remote  era,  which  the  writer  of  the  Pentateuch  displays 
at  every  turn  in  the  most  easy  and  natural  manner  pos- 
sible. Laborious  attempts  have  been  made  to  invali- 
date this  argument ;  and  one  writ^rf  has  gone  so  far  as 
to  assert  that  in  many  respects  the  author  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch shows  a  want  of  acquaintance  with  the  customs 
of  Egypt,  such  as  is  sufficient  to  prove  that  he  was  not 
Moses.  But  this  audacity  has  had  the  happy  effect  of 
calling  forth  a  reply,  which  has  established  beyond  all 
possibility  of  refutation  the  exactitude  and  vast  extent 
of  the  author's  Egyptian  knowledge,  which  is  now 
allowed  on  all  hands.  The  work  of  Ilengstenberg, 
"  Aegypten  und  Mosc,"  must  be  carefully  read  for  the 

*  Dc  Wclte,  *  Einleitung,  in  d.  alt.  Test.,'  §  163.  t  Von  Bohlen. 


Essay  VL]  THE  TENTATEUCII.  277 

full  weight  of  this  reasoning  to  be  appreciated. '•'  Its 
argument  does  not  admit  of  compression,  since  it  de- 
pends mainly  on  the  multiplicity  and  minuteness  of  its 
detail ;  but  the  impression  wliicli  it  leaves  may  be  stated, 

f-  briefly,  as  follows  : — That  either  a  person  born  and  bred 
in  Egypt  about  the  time  of  the  Exodus  wrote  the  Pen- 
,  tateuch,  or  that  a  writer  of  a  later  age  elaborately  stud- 
j  ied  the  history  and  antiquities  of  the  Egyptians  for  the 
/  purpose  of  imposing  a  forgery  on  his  countrymen,  and 
I  that  he  did  this  with  such  skill  and  success  that  not 
I  even  modern  criticism,  with  its  lynx-eyed  perspicacity, 
and  immense  knowledge  of  the  past,  can  detect  and 
expose  the  fraud  or  point  out  a  single  place  in  which 
the  forger  stumbled  through  ignorance. 

6.  To  this  it  must  be  added,  that  the  writer,  who  is 
thus  intimately  acquainted  with  the  land  and  people 
of  Egypt,  is  also  fully  aware  of  all  the  ])eculiar  features 
of  the  Sinaitic  peninsula ;  f  and  further  (and  more 
especially)  that  he  has  a  knowledge  of  the  ancient  con- 
dition and  primitive  races  of  Canaan,  wdiich  must  have 
been  quite  beyond  the  reach  of  any  one  wdio  lived 
much  later  than  Moses.  The  Eephaim,  Zuzim,  Emim, 
ITorim,  Avini,  and  Anakim,  wdio  appear  as  powerful 
races  in  the  Pentateuch,  have  either  perished  or  been 
reduced  to  insignilicance  by  the  time  of  the  Judges. 
The  writer  of  the  Pentateuch,  however,  knows  their 
several  countries,  their  designations  in  the  mouths  of 
different  nations,  their  cities,  and  the  peoples  by  whom 
they  were  severally  conquered. if  Similarly,  he  ac- 
quaints us  with  the  ancient  names  of  a  number  of 
Canaanitish  towns,  which  had  been  superseded  by  fresh 
titles  long  before  the  Exodus.§  All  this  is  natural 
enough,  supposing  that  the  work  was  composed  by 

*  This  work  has  been  translated  into  English  by  Mr.  R.  D.  C.  Robbins,  of 
the  Theological  Seminary,  Andovcr,  United  States;  and  a  reprint  of  this 
translation,  with  additional  notes,  formed  the  third  volume  of  Clarke's  *  Bib- 


lical Cabinet,'  New  Series  (Edinburgh,  1845.) 
/,  'Sinai  and  Palestine,  pp.' 20-24. 
X  Gen.  xiv.  5,  0;  Num.  xiii.  28;  Dent.  ii.  10-2C. 


t  Stanley, 


As  Mamre,  which  became  first  Kirjath-arba  (Josh.  xiv.  l.')\  and  then 
Hebron  ;  Bela,  which  became  Zoar  (Gen.  xiv.  2) ;  Eimiishpat,  which  became 
Kadesh  (ib.  ver.  7);  Ilazczon-Tamar,  which  l)ecame  Engedi  (ib. ;  compars 
2  Chron.  xx.  2) ;  and  Galeed,  which  became  Mizpah  (Gen.  xxxi.  48,  4i)). 


278  -^II^S  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  VI. 

Moses ;  but  it  would  be  very  forced  and  artificial  in  a 
writer  of  a  later  age,  even  if  we  could  suppose  such  a 
writer  to  have  any  means  of  acquiring  the  information. 
7.  Further,  the  Pentateuch  professes  to  be  the  work 
of  Moses.  Few  books  comparatively  tell  us  by  whom 
they  are  written.  Neither  Joshua,  nor  Judges,  nor 
Ruth,  nor  the  Books  of  Samuel,  nor  Kings,  nor  Chron- 
icles, nor  Esther,  nor  the  first  three  Gospels,  nor  the 
Acts,  nor  the  '  Commentaries  '  of  Caesar,  nor  the  '  An- 
nals,' or  '  Histories,'  of  Tacitus,  nor  the  '  Hellenics '  of 
Xenoj)hon,  nor  Plato's  '  Dialogues,'  nor  Aristotle's 
*  Philosophical  Works,'  nor  Plutarch's  '  Lives,'  nor  at 
least  nine-tenths  of  the  otlier  remains  of  ancient  litera- 
ture, contain  within  them  any  statements  showing  by 
whom  they  were  written.  Authorship  generally  is 
mere  matter  of  notoriety ;  and  usually  the  best  evi- 

Idence  we  have  for  it,  beyoiid  common  repute,  is  the 
declaration  of  some  writer,  later  by  two  or  three  cen- 
turies, that  the  person  to  whom  a  given  work  is  as- 
signed, composed  a  book  answering  in  its  subject  and 
/  its  general  character  to  the  work  which  we  find  passing 
\  under  his  name.  But  occasionally  we  have  evidence 
of  a  higher  order.  Some  writers  formally  name  them- 
selves as  the  authors  of  their  w^orks  at  the  beginning, 
or  at  the  close,  or  in  the  course  of  their  narrative.* 
Others,  without  a  distinct  formal  announcement,  let  us 
see,  by  the  mode  or  matter  of  their  narration,  who  the 
author  is,  using  the  first  person,  or  mentioning  facts  of 
which  they  only  could  be  cognisant,  or  otherwise  im- 
plying, without  directly  asserting,  their  authorship. 
This  last  is  the  case  of  the  Pentateuch.  The  author 
does  not  formally  announce  himself,  but  by  the  manner 
in  which  he  writes,  implies  that  he  is  Moses.  This  is 
so  clear  and  palpable,  that  even  the  antagonists  of  the 
genuineness  are  forced  to  allow  it.f  "  The  author  of 
the  last  four  books,"  says  one,  "  wishes  to  be  taken  for 
Moses."     "  The  writer  of  Deuteronomy,"  says  another, 

*  As  Herodotus,  Thucydides,  Isaiah,  St.  Paul,  Jesus  the  son  of  Sirach,  &c. 

t  De  Wette, 'Einlcitung  in  d.  alt.  Test.,' ^.  162,  d. ;  Hartmann,  '  For- 
scbungcn  liber  d.  Pentateuch,'  p.  538;  Von  Bohlen,  'Die  Genesis  hist.  krit. 
erliiut.  Einleitung,'  p.  xxxviii. 


Essay  VI.]  THE  PENTATEUCH.  279 

"  would  have  men  think  that  his  whole  book  is  com- 
posed by  Moses."  They  do  not  indeed  admit  the  con- 
clusion, that  what  is  thus  claimed  and  professed  must 
be  true  ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  maintain  that  the  actual 
writer  lived  many  centuries  after  the  great  Legislator. 
Apparently  they  do  •  not  see  that,  if  their  views  are 
correct,  the  whole  value  of  the  work  is  lost — that  it 
becomes  a  mere  impudent  fraud,  utterly  unworthy  of 
credit,  which  cannot  reasonably  be  attached  to  any 
statements  made  by  one  who  would  seek  to  palm  on 
the  world  a  gross  and  elaborate  deception.  If  a  work 
has  merely  gone  accidentally  by  a  wrong  name,  the 
discovery  of  its  spuriousness  need  not  seriously  affect 
its  authenticity  ;  but  if  the  writer  has  set  himself  to 
personate  another  man  in  order  to  obtain  for  his  state- 
ments a  weight  and  authority  to  which  they  would  not 
otherwise  be  entitled,  the  detection  of  the  fraud  car- 
ries with  it  the  invalidation  of  the  document,  by  wholly, 
destroying  our  confidence  in  the  integrity  of  the  author. 
Modern  Eationalism  shrinks  from  these  conclusions. 
It  would  degrade  the  Sacred  Books,  but  it  would  not 
deprive  them  altogether  of  an  historic  character.  It 
still  speaks  of  them  as  sacred,  and  as  entitled  to  our 
respect  and  reverence,  while  it  saps  the  foundations  on 
which  their  claim  to  our  reverence  rests,  making  them 
at  best  the  "  pious  frauds  "  of  well-intentioned  but  un- 
veracious  religionists. 

8.  The  external  evidence  of  the  Mosaic  authorship 
of  the  Pentateuch  is  allowed  to  be  extensive  ;  but  it  is 
said  to  be  of  little  worth,  in  the  first  place,  because  the 
witnesses  are  uncritical."  The  Jews  and  Greeks,  who, 
during  eighteen  centuries,  without  a  dissentient  voice 
ascribed  the  "  Book  of  the  Law  "  to  Moses,  were  not 
acquainted  with  the  modern  Critical  Analysis,  which 
claims  to  be  an  infallible  judge  of  the  age,  and  mode 
of  composition,  of  every  literary  production.  It  is  true 
the  witnesses  include  Apostles,f  prophets,:}:  confcssors,§ 
our  Blessed  Lord  Himself:]  but  the  distance  of  these 

*  De  Wette,  §  ir.-l.  +  John  i.  45 ;  2  Cor.  iii.  15. 

X  Dan.  ix.  11 ;  Mai  iv.  4.  g  Acts  vii.  38. 

I  Matt.  xix.  7,  S;  Mark  x.  3;  xii.  L'O ;  Luke  xvi.  29;  xxiv.  27;  John  v. 
46,  &c. 


280  ^^^^  TO  FAITIL  tEssATVL 

witnesses  from  the  age  of  Moses  is  held  to  invalidate 
their  testimony  ;*  or  if  the  words  of  One  at  least  are 
too  sacred  to  be  gainsaid,  He  spoke  (it  is  argued)  by 
way  of  accommodation,  in  order  not  to  shock  the  prej- 
udices of  the  Jews.  We  are  challenged  to  produce 
witnesses  near  the  time,  and  told  that  no  evidence  to 
the  Mosaic  authorship  "  approaches  within  seven  cen- 
turies to  the  probable  age  of  Moses."  f  Of  course,  if 
the  antiquity  of  the  Pentateuch  be  denied,  that  of  the 
later  books  of  the  Old  Testament  is  not  likely  to  pass 
unquestioned.  But  the  challenge  is  really  met,  and 
answered  fully  and  fairly  by  an  appeal  to  those  books, 
which  are  the  only  writings  within  the  period  named 
in  which  any  reference  to  Moses  was  to  be  expected. 
The  author  of  Joshua,  by  many  thought  to  be  Joshua 
himself,  and,  if  not  he,  at  least  one  of  his  contempora- 
ries, X  speaks  of  "  the  Book  of  the  Law,"  §  —  '•'  the 
Book  of  the  Law  of  Moses,"|| — a  book  containing  "all 
that  Moses  commanded,"^f  with  "  blessings  and  curs- 
ings ; "  **  thus  entirely  corresponding,  so  far  as  the 
description  goes,  to  the  work  wliich  has  always  passed 
under  Moses'  name.  Tlie  writer  of  Judges  is  less 
express  ;tt  hut  he  so  completely  agrees  in  his  account 
of  the  Hebrew  institutions  with  the  Pentateuch,  and 
so  closely  follows  its  diction  in  many  places,  that  a 
candid  Eationalist :]: J  has  been  driven  to  allow,  that 
*'  the  arranger  of  this  book  was  well  acquainted  with 
the  Pentateuch  in  its  entire  extent."  Li  Samuel, 
though  the  Pentateuch  itself  is  not  mentioned,  there 
are  at  least  two  clear  citations  of  it — the  passage  re- 
specting "  the  priest's  custom  with  the  people,''§§  which 
follows  word  for  word  Deut.  xviii.   3,  and   that  con- 

*  •  Westminster  Review,'  No.  xxxv.,  p.  S5. 

+  Ibid.  1.  s.  c. 

i  For  proof  of  this,  sec  the  *  Bampton  Lectures'  for  1859,  p.  83,  first  edi- 
tion. 

§  Josh,  i.  8 ;  viii.  84.  H  lb.  viii.  31 ;  xxiii.  G.  ^  lb.  viii.  35. 

**  lb.  ver.  34;  compare  Deut,  xxvii.  and  xxviii.  Note  also  the  quota- 
tions in  Josh.  viii.  31,  from  Deut.  xxvii.  5,  G ;  and  iu  Josh,  xxiii.  7,  from  Ex. 
xxiii.  13. 

tt  Judg.  ii.  15  is  probably  a  reference  to  Lev,  xxvi,  IG,  17;  and  Judg.  iii. 
4,  to  the  law  generally. 

n  Uartraanu.  §§  1  Sam.  ii.  13. 


EsflAYVL]  THE  PENTATEUCH.  281 

ceriiing  the  "  assembling  of  women  at  the  door  of  tlie 
Tabernacle  of  the  congregation,"^^  which  is  an  exact 
repetition  of  Ex.  xxxviii.  8.  In  Kings  and  Chronicles 
— both  probably  compihxtions  made  from  papers  con- 
temporary witli  the  kings  whose  liistory  is  rehxted — the 
references  to  the  work  are  frequent  :f  and  it  is  unhesi- 
tatingly assigned  to  Moses,:^  as  indeed  is  admitted  on 
all  hands. 

It  thus  appears  that  the  Pentateuch  is  either  cited, 
or  mentioned  as  the  work  of  Moses,  by  almost  the 
whole  series  of  Jewish  historical  writers  from  Moses 
himself  to  Ezra.  The  lirst  testimony  occurs  within 
(probably)  half  a  century  of  Moses'  decease,  and  is 
by  a  writer  who  may  have  known  him  personally.  It 
is  rarely  indeed  that  we  have  evidence  of  this  satisfac- 
tory and  conclusive  character  with  respect  to  the  genu- 
ineness of  any  ancient  work. 

9.  "With  regard  to  profane  testimony,  it  must  be 
allowed  that  none  of  it  is  very  ancient.  I3ut  this  simply 
results  from  the  fact  that  none  of  the  earlier  authors 
have  occasion  to  mention  the  Jews,  or  to  touch  the 
subject  of  their  literature.  The  first  who  do  so — 
Manetho  and  HecataBus  of  Abdera,  an  Egyptian  and  a 
Greek — are  in  accordance  with  the  native  authorities, 
ascribing  the  law  of  the  Jews,  which  is  represented  as 
existing  in  a  written  form,  to  Moses.  And  the  later 
classical  writers,  with  but  one  exception,  are  of  the 
same  opinion. 

10.  To  this  direct  testimony  the  adversaries  of  tlie 
Mosaic  authorship  are  wont  to  oppose  certain  difficul- 
ties, which  militate  (they  argue)  against  the  notion  that 
the  work  is  even  of  tlie  age  of  Moses.  The  most  im- 
portant of  these  is  the  objection  of  Do  Wette,  that  the 
book  is  altogether  beyond  the  literary  capabilities  of 
the  age,  containing  within  it  every  element  of  Hebrew 
literature  in  the  highest  perfection  to  which  it  ever 
attained,  and  thus  (he  thinks)  necessarily  belonging  to 

*  1  Sam.  ii.  22. 

t  1  Kings  ii.  G;  2  Kings  xxii.  S;  xxiii.  3;  2  Chron.  xxiii.  18;  xxv.  4; 
XXXV.  12. 

\  1  Kings  ii.  3;  2  Kings  xxiii.  2i5;  2  Chron.  xxiii.  IS,  &c. 


282  ^IDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  VI. 

the  acinic  and  not  to  the  infancy  of  the  nation.*  Were 
this  statement  correct,  we  should  indeed  liave  a  strange 
phenomenon  to  account  for,  though  one  which  could 
not  be  piX)nounced  impossible,  if  the  Divine  as  w^ell  as 
the  human  authorship  w^ere  taken  into  consideration. 
God  might  have  chosen  to  assign  to  the  first  burst  of 
written  Revelation  a  literary  perfection  never  after- 
w^ards  to  be  exceeded  or  even  equalled.  He  might 
have  given  to  His  first  mouthpiece,  Moses,  such  powers 
of  mind  and  such  a  mastery  over  the  Hebrew  language 
as  "  to  leave  nothing  for  succeeding  authors  but  to  fol- 
low in  his  footsteps."  The  fact,  however,  is  not  really 
so.  De  Wette's  statement  is  a  gross  exaggeration  of 
the  reality.  Considered  as  a  literary  work,  the  Penta- 
teuch is  not  the  production  of  an  advanced  or  refined, 
but  of  a  simple  and  rude  age.  Its  characteristics  are 
plainness,  in  artificiality,  absence  of  rhetorical  orna- 
ment, and  occasional  defective  arrangement.  The 
only  style  which  it  can  be  truly  said  to  bring  to  ^^erfec- 
tion,  is  that  simple  one  of  clear  and  vivid  narrative, 
which  is  always  best  attained  in  the  early  dawn  of  a 
nation's  literature,  as  a  Herodotus,  a  Froissart,  and  a 
Stow  sufficiently  indicate.  In  other  respects  it  is  quite 
untrue  to  say  that  the  work  goes  beyond  all  later 
Hebrew  efforts.  We  look  in  vain  through  the  Penta- 
teuch for  the  gnomic  wisdom  of  Solomon,  the  eloquent 
denunciations  of  Ezekiel  and  Jeremiah,  or  the  lofty 
flights  of  Isaiah.  It  is  absurd  to  compare  the  song  of 
Moses,  as  a  literary  production,  even  with  some  of  the 
Psalms  of  David,  much  more  to  parallel  it  with 
Ezekiel's  eloquence  and  Homeric  variety,  or  Isaiah's 
awful  depth  and  solemn  majesty  of  repose.  In  a  liter- 
ary point  of  view  it  may  be  questioned  whether  Moses 
did  so  much  for  the  Hebrews  as  Homer  for  the  Greeks, 
or  whether  Jiis  writings  had  really  as  great  an  influence 
on  the  after  productions  of  his  countrymen.  And  if 
his  literary  greatness  still  surprises  us,  if  Hebrew  liter- 
ature still  seems  in  his  person  to  reach  too  suddenly  a 
high  excellence,  albeit  not  so  high  a  one  as  has  been 

*  '  Eiulcitung,'  §  163,  sub.  fin. 


ES3AYVI.]  THE  PENTATEUCH.  283 

argued — let  113  remember,  in  the  first  place,  that  Moses 
was  not,  any  more  than  Ilomer,  the  first  writer  of  his 
nation,  but  only  happens  to  be  the  first  whose  writings 
have  come  down  to  us.  "  Vixere  fortes  ante  Agamem- 
nona."  Moses  seems  so  great  because  we  do  not 
possess  the  works  of  his  predecessors,  and  so  are  unable 
to  trace  the  progress  of  Hebrew  literature  up  to  him. 
Had  we  the  "  songs  "  of  Israel,*  and  the  "  book  of  the 
wars  of  the  Lord,"  which  he  quotes,f  we  might  find  him 
no  literary  phenomenon  at  all,  but  as  a  writer  merely 
on  a  level  with  others  of  his  a£>:e  and  nation.  Acrain, 
we  must  not  lorget  to  take  into  consideration  the  stim- 
ulus which  contact  with  the  cultivation  of  Egypt  would 
naturally  have  given  to  Hebrew  literature  during  the 
two  centuries  preceding  Moses.  If  we  may  trust  the 
modern  decipherers  of  Egyptian  papyri,  literature  in 
Egypt  had  reached  a  tolerably  advanced  stage  in  the 
time  of  the  eighteenth  and  nineteenth  dynasties,  under 
one  or  other  of  which  Moses  was  in  all  probability  born 
and  bred.  "The  art  of  writing  books  was  invented 
ages  before  the  time  of  Moses ;  "  J  and  had  been  car- 
ried further  in  Egypt  than  in  any  other  country.  His- 
toiy,  epistolary  correspondence,  and  novel-writing  were 
known  and  practised ;  so  that  the  composition  of  an 
extensive  work  possessing  literary  merits  even  of  a 
high  order  would  be  no  strange  thing  in  the  case  of 
one  bred  up  in  the  first  circles  of  Egyptian  society, 
and  "  learned  in  all  the  wisdom  "  of  that  ingenious 
people. 

11.  Besides  this  general  objection,  there  are  a  cer- 
tain number  of  particular  passages  which,  it  is  said, 
record  facts  later  than  the  time  of  Moses,  and  thus 
could  not  have  been  written  by  him.  Such  are  sup- 
posed to  be  the  mention  of  Dan  instead  of  Laish  in 
Gen.  xiv.  14  ;  of  Hebron  instead  of  Kirjath-Arba  or 
Mamre  in  Genesis  §  and  Numbers  ;  ||  and  the  list  of  the 
kings  of  Edom  in  Gen.  xxxvi.     Now  in  none  of  these 

*  Num.  xxi.  17;  compare  Ex.  xv.  1.  +  Num.  xxi.  14. 

X  Buusen,  '  Egypt,'  vol.  iv.  p.  3S1.     Compare  *  Cambridge  Essays'  for 
1858,  pp.  230-2GO. 

§  Gen.  xiii.  18 ;  xxiii.  2,  19 ;  xxxv.  27,  &c.  [  Num.  xiii.  22. 


284  ^^^^  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  VI. 

cases  is  it  really  impossible  that  Moses  may  have  writ- 
ten the  passages.  The  Dan  intended  may  be  Dan- 
jaan,*  and  not  Laish.  Hebron  may  have  been  a  name 
of  the  city  called  also  Mamre  and  Kirjath-Arba,  within 
the  lifetime  of  Moses.  Even  the  eight  kings  of  Edom 
may  possibly  be  a  dynasty  of  monarchs  intervening 
between  Esau  and  Moses,  the  last  of  the  eight  being 
Moses'  contemporary,  as  conjectured  by  Hiivernick.f 
The  remarkable  expression,  "  These  are  the  kings  that 
reigned  in  the  land  of  Edom,  he/ore  there  reigned  any 
king  over  the  children  of  Israel^'^  may  be  understood 
prophetically.  Moses  may  have  intended  in  the  passage 
to  mark  his  full  belief  in  the  j^romises  made  by  God 
to  Abraham  and  Jacob  \X  that  "  kings  should  come  out 
of  their  loins,"  a  belief  w^iich  he  elsewhere  expresses 
very  confidently.§  There  is  no  really  valid  or  insuper- 
able objection  to  any  of  these  explanations  ;  which  may 
not  strike  us  as  clever  or  dexterous,  yet  wdiicli  may  be 
true  nevertheless  ;  for  "  Le  wed  n^est  2>cts  toujour s  le 
vrcdse7n'blable.'''^ 

12.  Or  the  right  explanation  may  be  the  more  com- 
monly received  one — that  these  w^ords,  phrases,  and 
passages,  together  w^ith  a  few  others  similar  to  them, 
are  later  additions  to  the  text,  either  adopted  into  it 
upon  an  authoritative  revision,  such  as  that  ascribed 
to  Ezra,  or,  j)erhaps,  accidentally  introduced  through 
the  mistakes  of  copyists,  who  brought  into  the  text 
what  had  been  previously  added,  by  way  of  exegesis, 
in  the  margin.  Such  additions  constantly  occur  in  the 
case  of  classical  writers  ;  and  there  is  no  reason  to  sup- 
pose that  a  special  providence  would  interfere  to  pre- 
vent their  occurrence  in  the  Sacred  Volume.  We  "  have 
our  treasure  in  earthen  vessels."  God  gives  us  Ilis 
Revelation,  but  leaves  it  to  us  to  preserve  it  by  the 
ordinary  methods  by  wdiich  books  are  handed  down 
to  posterity.  No  doubt  its  transcendent  value  has 
caused  the  bestoAval  of  especial  care  and  attention  on 
the  transmission  of  the  Sacred  Volume  ;  and  the  result 

*  2  Sam.  xxiv.  G.  t  'Einleitune:,'  §  124. 

X  Gen.  xvii.  G,  IG;  xxxv.  11.  §  Deut.  xviCU-SO. 


EssatVI.]  the  PENTATEUCH. 


286 


is  that  no  ancient  collection  has  come  down  to  ns  nearly 
so  perfect,  or  with  so  few  corruptions  and  interpola- 
tions ;  but  to  declare  that  there  are  none,  is  to  make 
an  assertion  improbable  a  priori^  and  at  variance  with 
the  actnal  phenomena.  The  sober-minded  in  every 
age  have  allowed  that  the  WTitten  Word,  as  it  has  come 
down  to  us,  has  these  slight  imperfections,  which  no 
more  interfere  with  its  value  than  the  spots  upon  the 
sun  detract  from  his  brightness,  or  than  a  few  marred 
and  stunted  forms  destroy  the  harmony  and  beauty  of 
]S^ature. 

13.  One  other  line  of  objection  requires  a  few  words 
of  notice.  The  whole  Lcvitical  system,  it  is  sometimes 
said,  was  an  after-growth  from  the  real  Mosaic  law, 
w^hich  went  but  little,  if  at  all,  beyond  the  Decalogue. 
This  is  thought  to  be  evidenced  by  the  scantiness  of 
any  traces  of  Levitical  worship  throughout  the  period 
of  the  Judges,  and  the  infraction  of  various  precepts 
of  the  ceremonial  law  from  the  time  of  Joshua  to  tliat 
of  I^ehemiah.  But  it  has  been  sliown^  that  though 
the  Book  of  Judges  exhibits  a  very  disordered  political 
and  religious  condition  of  the  nation,  and  from  its  nature 
— biographical  rather  than  historical — is  likely  to  con- 
tain but  little  regarding  the  Mosaical  institutions,  yet 
it  does,  in  point  of  fact,  bear  witness  to  the  knowledge 
and  practical  existence  during  the  period  whereof  it 
treats,  of  a  very  considerable  number  of  those  usages 
w^hicli  are  specially  termed  Levitical.  The  sacred 
character  of  the  Levites,  their  dispersion  among  the 
different  tribes,  the  settlement  of  the  Iligh-Priesthood 
in  the  family  of  Aaron,  the  existence  of  the  Ark  of  the 
Covenant,  the  power  of  inquiring  of  God  and  obtaining 
answers,  the  irrevocability  of  a  vow,  the  distinguishing 
mark  of  circumcision,  the  distinction  between  clean  ancl 
unclean  meats,  the  law  of  the  Nazarite,  the  use  of  burnt- 
offerings  and  peace-offerings,  the  employment  of  trum- 
pets as  a  means  of  obtaining  Divine  aid  in  war,  the 
impiety  of  setting  up  a  king,  are  severally  acknowl- 
edged in  the  Book  of  Judges,  and  constitute  together 

*  By  Uuveruick.     '  Eiuloituug,'  §  13C. 


286  ^II>S  TO  FAITH.  PASSAT  VI. 

very  good  evidence  that  the  Mosaic  ceremonial  law 
was  already  in  force,  and,  though  disregarded  in  many 
points  by  the  mass,  was  felt  as  binding  by  all  those 
who  had  any  real  sense  of  religion.  Tlie  ritual,  as  a 
whole,  is  clearly  not  of  later  introduction  tlian  the  time 
of  the  Judges,  since  twelve  or  thirteen  of  its  main  points 
are  noted  as  being  at  that  time  in  force.  Why,  then, 
should  we  suppose,  merely  because  the  book  is  silent 
on  the  subject,  that  the  other  enactments  which  are  in 
the  same  spirit  and  are  inextricably  intertwined  with 
these,  were  not  known  at  the  period  ?  It  is  always 
dangerous  to  build  on  silence.  Here  the  silence  is  only 
partial ;  and  the  half-utterance  wdiich  we  have  is  suffi- 
cient to  indicate  what  the  full  answer  would  have  been, 
had  it  come  within  the  scope  of  the  writer  to  deliver 
it.  Tliere  is  thus  ample  reason  to  conclude  that  tlie 
Levitical  law  was  complete  in  all  its  parts  before  the 
time  of  the  Judges. 

What,  then,  shall  we  say  to  its  infractions  ?  what 
to  David's  "  priests  of  the  tribe  of  Judah  ? "  wliat  to 
Solomon  himself  offering  sacrifice  ?  what  more  espe- 
cially to  the  suspension  of  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  for 
eight  hundred  years  from  Joshua  to  Nehemiah  P  Are 
they  compatible  with  the  existence  of  the  Pentateuch 
at  the  time,  and  with  an  acknowledgment  of  its  Divine 
authority  on  the  part  of  those  who  disobeyed  its  injunc- 
tions ?     Even  if  we  allow  them  all  to  be  iiifractions,f 

*  '  Westminster  Review,'  No.  xxxv.,  p.  oO.  The  writer  gives  no  reference, 
except  to  Nehemiah  viii.  17,  which  shows  (he  thinks)  that  "  for  800  years, 
from  the  days  of  Joshua  to  those  of  Ezra,  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  was  \m- 
known  in  Israel."  Probably  he  would  regard  "  David's  priests  of  the  tribe 
of  Judah"  as  mentioned  in  2  Sam.  viii.  IS,  where  the  Hebrew  has  C^Sfil! 
which  commonly  means  "priests;"  while  for  "Solomon's  sacrifices"  we 
should  be  referred  to  1  Kings  viii.  5,  C2-G4;  2  Chr.  t.  G;  vii.  4,  5;  and 
viii.  12. 

+  In  point  of  fact,  none  of  the  infractions  need  be  allowed.  David's 
"  priests  of  the  tribe  of  Judah"  are  ]irobably  not  "priests,"  but  "princes," 
or  "  chief  rulers,"  as  our  Authorized  Version  renders,  (Sec  Buxtorf  ad  voc. 
■jniD.  and  compare  Gesenius  ad  eand.,  who  allows  that  '^'TiT.  may  mean  "  a 
prince ; "  though  he  prefers  in  this  place  to  translate  "  priests,"  and  to  under- 
stand "  ecclesiastical  counsellors."  Note  also  that  the  LXX.  give  avXapxai, 
"  chamberlains,"  and  that  in  the  parallel  passage,  1  Chron.  xviii.  17,  the  ex- 
pression used  isT^b^rt  l^b  d'^D^^'in,  "chief"  or  "first  about  the  king.") 
With  regard  to  Solomon's  sacrifices,  it  is  nowhere  either  stated  or  implied 


Essay  VI.]  THE  TENTATEUCn.  287 

Ave  may  still  answer  that  undoubtedly  they  are.  An 
authority  may  be  acknowledged  which  is  not  obeyed. 
Precepts  may  be  heard,  read,  and  known,  may  be  as 
familiar  as  household  words  in  the  mouths  of  persons, 
and  yet  may  not  be  carried  out  in  act.  There  would 
be  nothing  more  strange  in  David's  breaking  the  Leviti- 
cal  law  with  respect  to  priesthood  in  the  case  of  his 
sons,  than  in  his  infraction  of  the  moral  law  respecting 
chastity  in  the  case  of  Uriah's  wife.  There  would  be 
no  greater  marvel  in  Solomon's  taking  it  upon  himself 
to  offer  sacrifice  than  in  his  marrying  wives  from  the 
forbidden  nations.  There  would  be  nothing  harder  to 
understand  in  the  discontinuance  after  a  while  of  one 
of  the  great  Mosaical  feasts,  than  in  the  introduction 
and  stubborn  maintenance  from  one  generation  to  an- 
other of  idolatrous  rites.  The  moral  law,  admitted  to 
have  been  given  by  Moses,  was  broken  constantly  in 
almost  every  clause ;  why  then  should  infractions  of 
the  ceremonial  law  disprove  its  having  come  from 
him  ? 

14:.  The  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  is 
therefore  a  thing  which,  to  say  the  least,  has  not  been 
hitherto  disproved ;  and  the  ingenious  -attempts  of  the 
modern  reconstructive  criticism  to  resolve  the  work 
into  its  various  elements,  and  to  give  an  account  of  the 
times  when  and  the  persons  by  whom  they  were  sev- 
erally composed,  even  if  they  had  no  other  fjiult,  must 
be  pronounced  premature;  for  until  it  is  shown  that 
the  book  was  not  composed  by  its  reputed  author,  the 
mode  and  time  of  its  composition  are  not  fit  objects 
of  research.  The  theological  student  may  congratu- 
late himself  that  this  is  so,  and  that  he  is  not  called 
upon  to  study  and  decide  between  the  twenty  difierent 
views — each  more  complicated  than  the  last — which 
Continental  critics,  from  Astruc  to  Bunscn,  have  put 
out  on  this  apparently  inexhaustible  subject. 

that  he  sacrificed  with  his  own  hand.  "  The  priests"  are  mentioned  as  pres- 
ent with  him  at  the  time  (1  Kings  viii.  G ;  2  Chron.  v.  7 ;  vii.  2,  0),  and  it  is 
most  probable  that  he  used  their  services.  Evidently  he  could  not  himself 
have  slain  the  22,0<i0  oxen  and  120,000  sheep  of  one  sacrifice  (1  Kings  viii. 
G3).  And  Xchemiah,  in  viii.  17,  probably  only  means  that  no  such  celebra- 
tion of  the  feast  had  taken  place  since  the  time  of  Joshua. 


288  ^IDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  VL 

15.  It  is  sometimes  said  that  questions  of  genuine- 
ness are  matters  of  mere  idle  curiosit}^,  and  that  authen- 
ticity is  alone  of  importance.  In  an  historical  work 
especially,  wliat  we  want  to  know  is,  not  by  whom  it 
is  written,  but  whether  the  narrative  which  it  contains 
is  true.  This  last,  no  doubt,  is  our  ultimate  object; 
but  it  not  unfrequently  happens  that,  for  the  purpose 
of  deciding  it,  we  have  to  consider  the  other  point ; 
since  the  genuineness  is  often  the  best  guarantee  of  the 
authenticity.  How  entirely  would  it  change  our  es- 
timate of  Xenophon's  '  Anabasis,'  were  we  to  find  that 
it  was  composed  under  the  name  of  Xenophon  by  a 
Greek  of  the  time  of  the  Antonines  !  Xo  works  are  more 
valuable  for  history  than  autobiographies ;  and  when 
w^e  come  upon  a  document  claiming  any  such  character, 
it  is  of  great  importance  to  see  whether  upon  exami- 
nation the  character  is  sustained  or  no.  Given  the 
genuineness  of  such  a  work,  and  the  authenticity  follows 
almost  as  a  matter  of  course,  unless  it  can  be  shown 
that  the  writer  is  unveracious,  and  wished  to  deceive, 
nationalists  have  not  failed  to  perceive  the  force  of  this 
reasoning  with  respect' to  the  Pentateuch;  and  hence  their 
laborious  efforts  to  disprove  its  genuineness.  Strauss 
remarks  naively  enough — "The  books  which  describe 
the  departure  of  the  Israelites  from  Egypt,  and  their 
w\anderings  through  the  wilderness,  bear  the  name  of 
Moses,  who,  being  their  leader,  would  undoubtedly  give 
a  faithful  history  of  these  occurrences,  unless  he  designed 
to  deceive;  and  who,  if  his  intimate  connection  with 
D^eity  described  in  these  books  be  historically  true,  was 
likewise  eminently  qualified,  by  virtue  of  such  con- 
nection, to  produce  a  credible  history  of  the  earlier 
periods."  "  This  admission  on  the  part  of  the  most  ex- 
treme of  nationalists  is  sufficient  to  show  that,  at  least 
in  the  case  before  us,  it  is  not  irrelevant  or  unimportant 
to  attempt  to  establish  the  genuineness  of  the  record. 

16.  Before  the  final  close  of  this  portion  of  the  in- 
quiry, it  will  perhaps  be  best  to  state  distinctly  in  what 
sense  it  is  intended  to  maintain  that   Moses  was  the 

*  *  Lcbeu  Jesu,'  EiulcituDg,  §  13. 


Essay  VI.]  THE  TENTATEUCU.  289 

author  of  the  Pentateuch.  In  the  first  phace,  it  is  not 
intended  to  assert  that  he  was  the  original  composer  of 
all  the  documents  contained  in  liis  volume.  The  Book 
of  Genesis  bears  marks  of  being  to  some  extent  a  compi- 
lation. Moses  probably  possessed  a  number  of  records, 
some  of  greater,  some  of  less  antiquity,  whereof,  under 
Divine  guidance,  he  made  use  in  writing  the  history  of 
mankind  up  to  his  own  time.  It  is  possible  that  the 
Book  of  Genesis  may  have  been,  even  mainly,  com- 
posed in  this  way  from  ancient  narratives,  registers, 
and  biographies,  in  part  the  ])roperty  of  the  Hebrew 
race,  in  part  a  possession  common  to  that  race  with 
others.  Moses,  guided  by  God's  Spirit,  would  choose 
among  such  documents  those  which  were  historically 
true,  and  Avhicli  bore  on  the  religious  history  of  the 
human  race.  lie  would  not  be  bound  slavishly  to 
follow,  much  less  to  transcribe  them,  but  would  curtail, 
expand,  adorn,  complete  them,  and  so  make  them  thor- 
oughly his  own,  infusing  into  them  the  religious  tone 
of  his  own  mind,  and  at  the  same  time  re- writing  them 
in  his  own  language.  Thus  it  would 'seem  that  Genesis 
was  produced.  With  regard  to  the  remainder  of  his 
history,  he  would  have  no  occasion  to  use  the  labours 
of  others,  but  would  write  from  his  own  knowledge.' 

In  the  second  place,  it  is  not  intended  to  deny  that 
the  Pentateuch  may  have  undergone  an  authoritative 
revision  by  Ezra,  when  the  language  may  have  been  to 
some  extent  modernised,  and  a  certain  number  of  par- 
enthetic insertions  may  have  been  made  into  the  text. 
The  Jewish  traditiou  on  this  head  seems  to  deserve 
attention  from  its  harmony  with  what  is  said  of  Ezra  in 
the  book  which  bears  his  name.  -  And  this  authoritative 
revision  would  account  at  once  for  the  language  not 
being  more  archaic  than  it  is,  and  for  the  occasional 
insertion  of  parentheses  of  the  nature  of  a  comment. 
It  would  also  explain  the  occurrence  of  "  Chaldaism  " 
in  the  text.f 

*  Sec  Lord  Arthur  Ilcrvcy's  article  ou  '  Ezra,'  iu  IJr.  Smith's  '  Biblical 
Dictionary,'  vol.  i.,  p.  Coi), 

t  llirzel,  'i)e  Clialdaisnii  Biblici  orijrinc,'  pp.  '>  vi  scqq.  There  is  also 
another  modo  iu  which  the  "  Chaldaisnis"  may  be  accounted  for.  As 
13 


290  -^I^S  TO  FAITII.  [Essay  VL 

Thirdly,  it  is,  of  course,  not  intended  to  include  in 
the  Pentateuch  the  last  chapter  of  Deuteronomy,  which 
was  evidently  added  after  Moses'  death,  probably  by 
the  writer  of  the  Book  of  Joshua. 

17.  The  authenticity  of  the  Pentateuch  has  been 
recently  called  in  question,  principally  on  the  following 
points : — 1.  The  chronology,  which  is  regarded  as  very 
greatly  in  deficiency;  2.  The  account  given  of  the 
S'lood,  which  is  supposed  to  magnify  a  great  calamity 
in  Upper  Asia  into  a  general  destruction  of  the  human 
race ;  3.  The  ethnological  views,  which  are  said  to  be 
sometimes  mistaken ;  4.  The  patriarchal  genealogies, 
which  are  charged  with  being  purely  mythical ;  5.  The 
length  of  the  lives  of  the  Patriarchs,  wdiich  is  thought 
to  be  simply  impossible  ;  and  6.  The  duration  of  the 
sojourn  in  Egypt,  which  is  considered  incompatible 
with  the  number  of  Israelites  on  entering  and  quitting 
the  country.  It  is  proposed,  in  the  remainder  of  this 
paper,  to  consider  briefly  these  six  subjects. 

I.  According  to  Baron  Bunsen,  the  historic  records 
of  Egypt  reach  np  to  the  year  b.c.  9085.  A  sacerdotal 
monarchy  was  then  established,  and  Bytis,  the  Theban 
priest  of  Amnion,  was  the  first  king.  Before  this  Egypt 
had  been  republican,  and  separate  governments  had 
existed  in  the  diiferent  nomes.  Egyptian  nationality 
commenced  as  early  as  b.  c.  10,000.  These  conclusions 
are  vaguely  said  to  be  drawn  ''from  Egyptian  records,"'^ 
or  "  from  the  monuments  and  other  records  ;"  f  expres- 
sions apt  to  beget  a  belief  that  there  is  really  monu- 
mental evidence  for  them.  Let  us  then  see,  in  the  first 
place,  what  is  the  true  basis  on  which  they  rest. 

The  Egyptian  monuments  contain  no  continuous 
chronology,  and  no  materials  from  which  a  continuous 
chonological  scheme  can  be  framed.:]:    The  possibility 

Chaldce  and  Hebrew  are  sister  tongues,  having  one  common  parent,  the 
forms  and  expressions  in  question  may  have  been  common  to  both  at  first, 
but  have  died  out  in  the  Ilebrew  while  they  were  retained  in  the  Chakiee. 
Movers  observes  with  reason  : — "  Aramaic  forms  in  a  book  are  either  a  sign 
of  a  very  early  or  of  a  very  hite  composition."  ('Bonner  Zeitschrift  fur 
Philosophic,'  xvi.  157.)    Those  in  Genesis  may  be  really  "Archaisms."  ^ 

*  '  Essavs  and  Reviews,'  p.  54.        t  Bunsen's  '  Egypt,'  vol.  iv.,  p.  553. 

\  "  The'  history  of  the  dynasties  preceding  the  IStb,"  says  Mr.  Stuart 


Essay  VI.]  THE  TENTATEUCn.  291 

of  constructing  such  a  sclieme  depends  entirely  upon 
the  outline  which  has  been  preserved  to  ns  of  the 
Sebennytic  priest  Manetho,  who  composed  a  history  of 
Egypt  under  the  early  Ptolemies.  This  outline  is  in  a 
very  imperfect  condition  ;  and  the  two  versions  of  it, 
which  we  find  in  Syncellus  and  in  the  Armenian  Euse- 
bius,  differ  considerably.  Still  both  agree  in  represent- 
ing Egypt  as  governed  by  thirty  dynasties  of  kings 
from  Menes  to  Alexander,  and  the  sum  of  the  years 
which  they  assign  to  these  dynasties  is  a  little  above 
(or  a  little  below)  5000.  The  monuments  have  proved 
two  things  w^ith  respect  to  these  lists  :  they  have  shown, 
in  the  first  place,  that  (speaking  generally)  they  are  his- 
torical— that  the  persons  mentioned  were  real  men,  who 
actually  lived  and  reigned  in  Egypt ;  while,  secondly, 
they  have  shown  that  though  all  reigned  in  Egypt,  all 
did  not  reign  over  the  whole  of  Egypt,  but  while  some 
were  kings  in  one  part  of  the  country,  others  ruled  in 
another.  It  is  allowed  on  all  hands — by  M.  Bunsen 
no  less  than  by  others — that  no  chronological  scheme 
of  any  real  value  can  be  formed  from  Manetho's  lists 
until  it  be  first  determined,  either  which  dynasties  and 
monarchs  were  contemporar}^,  or  what  deduction  from 
the  sum  total  of  the  dynastic  years  is  to  be  made  on 
account  of  contemporaneousness.  M.  Bunsen  regards 
this  point  as  one  which  Manetho  himself  determined, 
and  assumes  that  he  was  sure  to  determine  it  aright, 
lie  finds  a  statement  in  Syncellus,"  that  "  Manetho 
made  his  dynasties  cover  a  space  of  113  generations, 
or  3555  years ;"  and  he  accepts  this  statement  as  com- 
pletely removing  the  difiiculty,  and  absolutely  estab- 
lishing the  historic  fact  that  the  accession  of  ]\[enes  to 
the  crown  of  Egypt  took  ]^lace  more  than  thirty-six 
centuries  before  our  era.f     lie  then  professes  to  follow 

Poole,  "  is  not  told  by  any  continuous  scries  of  monuments.  Except  those  of 
the  4th  and  12th  dynasties  there  are  scarcely  any  records  of  the  age  left  to 
the  present  day."  ('Biblical  Dictionary,' vol.  i.  p.  riOU.)  M.  Bunsen  also 
says,  in  one  place,  of  the  Egyptian  monuments :— "  Such  documents  cannot 
indeed  compensate  for  the  want  of  written  history.  Even  Chronology,  its 
framework,  catmot  he  elicited  from  tliem^ — ('Egypt,'  vol.  i.,  p.  32.) 

*  *  Chronograph,'  p.  52,  D. 

+  *  Egypt,'  vol.  i.  pp.  S6-89.  Lcpsius,  on  the  same  grounds,  and  keeping 
closer  tohis  authority,  places  Menos  nearly  31J  centuries  before  Christ. 


292  ^^^^  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  VI. 

Manetho  for  tlie  precedinf]:  period  ;  but  here  he  distorts 
and  misrej^resents  him.  Manetho  gave  his  Egyptian 
dynasties  altogether  about  30,000  years.  This  long 
space  he  divided,  however,  into  a  natural  and  a  super- 
natural period.  To  tlie  supernatural  period,  during 
which  Egypt  was  governed  by  gods,  demigods,  and 
spirits,  he  assigned  24,925  years.  To  the  natural  pe- 
riod, which  began  with  Menes,  he  gave  at  any  rate  not 
much  more  than  5000^  M.  Bunsen,  not  content  ^vith 
this  antiquity,  but  determining  to  find  (or  make)  a 
greater,  changes  the  order  of  Manetho's  early  dynas- 
ties, and  by  removing  to  a  higher  position,  without  au- 
thority and  of  his  own  mere  fancy,  one  which  is  plainly 
supernatural,  obtains  for  the  natural  period  four  dynas- 
ties, covering  a  space  of  5212  years  (or,  as  he  makes  it, 
5402  years),  which  are  capable  of  being  represented  as 
human.  This,  then,  is  the  mode  in  which  the  date 
B.  c.  9085  is  reached.  It  is  not  obtained  from  the  mon- 
uments, which  have  no  chronology,  or  at  any  rate  none 
earlier  than  b.  c.  1525.  It  is  not  derived  from  Mane- 
tho, for  it  is  in  direct  contradiction  to  his  views,  more 
than  doubling  the  period  during  which,  according  to 
him,  Egypt  had  had  human  kings.  It  is  a  mere  theory 
of  M.  Bunsen's,  to  square  with  which  Manetho's  lists 
have  been  violently  disturbed,  and  above  5000  years 
subtracted  from  his  divine  to  be  added  to  his  liuman 
period. 

Even  with  respect  to  Menes,  and  the  supposed  date 
of  B.  c.  3892  (according  to  Lepsius),  or  b.  c.  3623  (ac- 
cording to  M.  Bunsen),  for  his  accession,  on  what  does 
it  in  reality  depend  ?  Not  on  any  monumental  evi- 
dence, but  sim])ly  on  the  supposition  that  in  a  certain 
passage  (greatly  disputed^)  of  Syncellus,  he  has  cor- 
rectly represented  Manetho's  views,  and  on  the  further 
supposition  that  Manetho's  views  were  absolutely  right. 
But  is  it  reasonable  to  suppose  that  Manetho  had  data 
for  determining  with  such  exactitude  an  event  so  re- 

*  BiJckh  in  Germany,  and  Mons.  C.  Miillcr  in  France,  have  disputed  M. 
Bnnsen's  conclusions  from  the  passage  of  Syncelhis.  The  hatter  thinks  that 
it  is  a  Pseudo-Manetho  to  whom  Syncclkis  refers.  The  former  regards  the 
passage  as  corrupt,  and  suspects  that  Auniauus  was  quoted,  not  Manetho. 


Essay  VI.]  THE  TENTATEUCU,  293 

mote,  even  if  it  be  a  real  event  at  all,*  as  the  acces- 
sion of  Menes  ?  It  is  plain  and  palpable,  and  moreover 
universally  admitted,  that  between  the  ancient  mon- 
archy (or  rather  monarchies)  of  Egypt  and  the  later 
kingdom,  there  intervened  a  time  of  violent  disturbance 
— the  period  known  as  tlie  domination  of  the  Ilyksos — 
during  which  the  native  Egyptians  suffered  extreme 
oppression,  and  throughout  Egypt  all  was  disorder  and 
confusion.  The  notices  of  this  period  are  so  vague  and 
uncertain,  that  moderns  dispute  whether  it  lasted  500, 
600,  900,  or  2000  years.f  Few  monuments  belong  to 
it.  It  is  extremely  doubtful  whether  an  Egyptian  of 
Manetho's  age,  honestly  investigating  the  records  of 
the  past,  coukl  have  carried  on  chronology,  with  any 
approach  to  exactness,  beyond  the  commencement  of 
the  eighteenth  dynasty,  which  effected  the  expulsion 
of  the  Ilyksos  or  Shepherd  kings.  From  that  time 
Egypt  had  been  united,  and  had  been  a  tolerably  set- 
tled monarchy.  Previously,  the  country  had  been 
divided  into  a  multitude  of  states,  sometimes  more, 
sometimes  fewer  in  number,  each  knowing  very  little 
of  the  rest,  all  inclined  to  magnify  their  own  duration 
and  antiquity,  and  none  able  effectually  to  check  the 
others.  Let  it  be  granted  that  Manetlio  honestly  en- 
deavoured to  collect  and  arrange  the  lists  of  kings  in 
the  several  states  among  which  Egypt  had  been  par- 
celled out.  What  a  task  was  before  him !  Roj^al  mon- 
uments, or  dynastic  lists  of  better  or  worse  authority, 
might  give  him  the  names  of  the  monarchs  and  the 
number  of  years  that  each  had  borne  the  royal  title. 
But  as  "  association  "  was  widely  practised  in  Egypt — . 
two,  three,  and  even  more  kings  occupying  the  throne 
together — it  would  have  been  a  work  of  extreme  diffi- 
culty, without  full  and  detailed  records,  which  can 
scarcely  be  supposed  to  have  generally  survived  the 

*  Whether  Mcncs  was  an  historic  personage  at  all  may  reasonably  be 
doubted.  It  is  not  pretended  that  he  left  any  monuments.  As  a  name 
closely  resembling  his  is  found  in  the  earliest  traditions  of  various  nations, 
e.  g.  Menu  in  India,  Minos  in  Crete,  Manis  in  Phrygia,  Manes  in  Lydia,  and 
Mannt/s  in  Clermany,  there  is  at  least  reason  to  suspect  that  he  belongs  to 
myth  rather  than  to  history. 

t  Buuscn,  'Egypt,'  vol.  iv.  p.  508;  'Bibl.  Diet.,'  vol.  i.  p.  503. 


294  ^^^^  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  y I. 

Ilyksos  period,  to  make  out  from  the  length  of  the 
reigns  the  duration  of  any  dynasty.  And  to  determine 
^vhat  dynasties  were  contemporary  and  ^vliat  consecu- 
tive would  have  been  a  still  harder  task.  It  is  ex- 
tremely doubtful  whether  Manetho  really  made  any 
effort  to  overcome  these  difficulties.  Setting  aside  the 
single  disputed  passage  of  Syncellus,  we  have  no  evi- 
dence that  he  did.  His  lists,  as  they  have  come  down 
to  us,  both  in  Syncellus  and  Eusebius,  are  a  mere 
enumeration,  in  a  single  line,  of  thirty  dynasties  of 
kings,  with  an  estimate  of  the  years  of  each  dynasty, 
evidently  formed  by  merely  adding  together  the  years 
of  the  several  reigns.  There  is  no  trace  in  either  epit- 
ome of  any  allowance  being  made,  either  on  account 
of  contemporary  kings  within  a  dynasty,  or  on  account 
of  contemporary  dynasties.  ■  Apparently,  Manetho 
either  declined  the  task  of  arranging  and  completing 
tlie  chronology  as  one  for  which  he  had  no  sufficient 
data,  or  preferred  to  leave  the  impression  on  foreigners 
that  the  dynasties  and  kings  were  all  consecutive,  and 
that  Egypt  had  a  history  stretching  back  fifty  centuries 
before  Alexander !  Other  Egyptian  priests  before  him 
had  made  even  greater  exaggerations.'^ 

If  it  be  still  thought  that  the  mere  opinion  of  men 
so  well  acquainted  with  the  EgyjDtian  monuments,  as 
Bunsen  and  Lepsius,  ought  to  have  weight,  despite  the 
weakness  of  the  argumentative  grounds  on  which  they 
rest  their  conclusions,  let  it  be  remembered  that  others, 
as  deeply  read  in  hieroglyjDhic  lore,  and  as  capable  of 
forming  a  judgment,  have  come  to  conclusions  wholly 
different.  Sir  Gardner  Wilkinson  inclines  to  place  the 
accession  of  Menes  about  b.  c.  2690,'t'  and  Mr.  Stuart 
Poole  gives  as  his  first  year  b.  c.  2717.:j:  These  writers 
believe  that  the  number  of  contemporaneous  dynasties 
has  been  much  under-estimated  by  the  German  sava?is, 
who  have  especially  erred  in  regarding  the  Theban 
dynasties  as,  all  of  them,  subsequent  to  the  Memphite. 
They  consider  that  Manetho's  lirst  and  third  Theban 

*  Herod,  ii.  100  and  142, 143. 

t  Sec  the  writer's  '  Herodotus,'  vol.  ii.  pp.  342,  343. 

+  '  Biblical  Dictionary/  vol.  i.  p.  508. 


fissAYVI.]  THE  TENTATEUCn. 


295 


dynasties  were  contemporary  with  Lis  third,  fourth,  and 
iifth  Memphite ;  that  the  lirst  and  second  Shepherd 
dynasties  ruled  at  the  same  time  in  different  parts  of 
Lower  Egypt ;  and  that  the  dynasty  of  Choites  (Mane- 
tho's  l-itli)  was  contemporary  with  tlie  two  Shepherd 
dynasties  above  mentioned,  and  w^ith  tlie  second  Theban. 
They  do  not  deny  that  their  arrangement  of  the  dynas- 
ties is  to  some  extent  conjectural ;  but  they  maintain 
that,  while  the  idea  of  it  was  derived  from  a  close  in- 
spection of  Manetho's  lists,  it  is  also  "  strikingly  con- 
iirmed  by  the  monuments."*  While  names  of  such 
weight  can  be  quoted  on  the  side  of  a  moderate  Egyp- 
tian chronology,  it  cannot  be  reasonably  argued  that 
Egyptian  records  have  disproved  the  Biblical  narrative. 
Still  less  can  it  be  argued  that  the  records  of  other 
nations,  so  far  as  they  have  any  pretension  to  be  con- 
sidered historical,  conflict  w4th  the  chronology  of  the 
Bible.  The  Babylonians  indeed,  the  Indians,  and  the 
Chinese,  in  their  professed  histories  of  ancient  times, 
carry  back  the  antiquity  of  our  race  for  several  hun- 
dred thousand  years.  But  it  is  admitted  that  in  every 
case  these  large  numbers  are  purely  mythical ;  and,  iu 
truth,  the  authentic  histories  of  all  these  nations  begin 
even  later  than  the  Egyptian.  India  has  no  historical 
documents  earlier  than  the  third, f  or  China  than  the 
sixth  century  b.  c.  Indian  history  scarcely  goes  back 
beyond  the  time  of  Alexander;  Chinese  is  not  thought 
by  those  who  place  most  faith  in  the  early  literature 
of  the  country  to  ascend  any  higher  than  the  year  b.  c. 
26374  "^^^^  Babylonian  historian,  Berosus,  wdiile  ho 
claimed  for  the  human  race  an  antiquity  of  above 
400,000  years,  arranged  his  dynasties  in  such  a  way  as 
to  make  it  palpable  that  the  historic  period  began,  at 
the  earliest,  in  b.  c.  2458.  This  is  the  conclusion  of 
Sir  Henry  Rawlinson  in  England,  of  Gutschmid  and 
Brandis  in  Germany.  §     These  critics  divide  the  nine 

*  Ibid.  p.  nOr. 

t  See  the  late  Professor  Wilson's  Intr.ocluction  to  the  'Rig- Veda  Sunhita,' 
pp.  xlvi.,  xlvii. 

X  Remusat,  'Nouvcaux  Melanges  Asiatiques,'  vol.  i.  p.  G5:  Bunsen. 
'Egypt,' vol.  iii.  pp.  37U-107. 

§  Gutschmid,  '  Rhoinischcs  Museum,'  vol.  viii,  p.  252  ct  scqq. ;  Brandis, 
*  Rerum  Assjriarum  Tempora  emeudata,'  pp.  1(5,  17. 


296  -^IDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  VL 

dynasties  of  Bcrosns  into  two  nijthic  ones  (reigning 
the  extravagant  periods  of  432,000  and  34,080  years), 
and  seven  historic  ones,  all  reigning  moderate  and  pos- 
sible periods,  varying  between  87  and  526  years.  It 
might  have  seemed  incredible  that  in  the  nineteenth 
century  any  critic  could  take  a  diflerent  view.  M. 
Bunsen,  however,  believing  that  he  has  "  devised  a 
method"*  whereby  the  historical  part  of  the  second 
dynasty,  which  he  arbitrarily  divides,  may  be  reduced 
to  1550  years,  adds  that  space  of  time  to  Berosus'  his- 
toric chronology,  and  decides  that  the  regular  registra- 
tion of  the  oldest  Chaldrean  kings  commenced  e.g. 
3784.  He  thus  assumes  the  partially  historic  character 
of  a  dynasty  said  to  have  reigned  more  than  34,000 
years,  two  kings  of  which — Chomasbelus  and  Evecliius 
— are  made  to  occupy  the  throne  for  above  5000  years ! 
It  seems  needless  to  examine  the  "method"  w^hereby, 
from  data  thus  manifestly  unhistoric,  an  exact  conclu- 
sion, claiming  to  be  historically  certain,  is  drawn. f 

On  the  whole  it  would  seem  that  no  profane  history 
of  an  authentic  character  mounts  up  to  an  earlier  date 
than  the  27th  or  28th  century  before  Christ.  Egyptian 
Iiistory  begins  about  e.g.  2700  ;  Chinese,  perhaps,  in 
E.G.  2637 ;  Babylonian  in  e.g.  2458  ;  Assyrian  in  e.g. 
1273  ;  Greek,  with  the  Trojan  War,  in  e.g.  1250,  or, 
perhaps,  with  Hercules,  a  century  earlier ;  Lydian  in 
E.G.  1229  ;  Phoenician  about  the  same  period  ;:j;  Car- 
thaginian in  E.G.  880 ;  Macedonian  about  e.g.  720 ; 
Median  not  before  e.g.  708  ;  Koman  in  the  middle  of 
the  same  century  ;  Persian  in  e.g.  558  ;  Indian,  about 
E.G.  350  ;  Mexican  and  Peruvian  not  till  after  our  era.§ 

*  'Egypt,'  vol.  iv.  p.  411. 

t  One  method,  however,  whereby  M.  Bunsen  exaggerates  his  Babylonian 
chronology  seems  worthy  of  notice.  It  is  the  method  of  7nidranslation. 
Philo  Byulius  having  observed  in  his  work  about  Cities  that  Babylon  was 
founded  1002  years  {ircffi  x^^iois  Svo)  before  Scmiramis,  M.  Bunsen  renders 
the  words  in  brackets  by  **  two  thonsa?ui  years,"  thus  gaining  for  his  chro- 
nology near  a  thousand  years  at  a  stroke.  (Sec  his  '  Egypt,'  vol.  iv.  p.  414, 
and  again  p.  491.) 

X  See  the  writer's  '  Herodotus,'  vol.  iv.  p.  240.  The  first  known  Phooui- 
cian  king  is  Abibal,  the  father  of  Hiiam,  David's  contemporary.  He  cannot 
be  placed  earlier  than  B.C.  1100. 

§  See  Proscott,  *  History  of  the  Conquest  of  Mciico,'  vol.  i.  p.  13  j  '  His* 
tory  of  the  Conquest  of  Peru,'  vol.  i.  pp.  10-14. 


EssatVI.]  TUE  PENTATEUCH.  297 

The  oldest  liinnan  constructions  remaining  upon  tlic 
earth  are  the  Pyramids,  and  these  date  from  about  b.c. 
2400  ;  '^'  the  brick  temples  of  Babylonia  seem,  none  of 
them,  earlier  than  b.c.  2300  ;f  b.c.  2000  would  be  a 
high  date  for  the  first  Cyclopian  walls  in  Greece  or 
Italy ;  the  earliest  rock  inscriptions  belong  to  nearly 
the  same  period.  If  man  has  existed  upon  the  earth 
ten  or  twenty  thousand  years,  as  M.  Bunsen  supposes, 
why  has  he  left  no  vestiges  of  himself  till  within  the 
last  five  thousand  ?  :j:  It  cannot  be  said  that  his  earlier 
works  would  necessarily  have  perished  ;  for  there  is 
nothing  to  hinder  the  Pyramids  or  the  Birs  Nimrud 
from  standing  several  thousand  years  longer.  It  is  re- 
marked that  in  Egypt  the  most  ancient  monuments 
exhibit  but  slight  traces  of  rudeness,  and  that  the  arts 
within  two  centuries  of  Menes  are  in  a  very  advanced 
condition,  so  that  civilisation  must  have  made  great 
progress  even  before  the  age  of  Menes.  But  "  the  con- 
stitutional development  of  Egyptian  life  "  into  the  con- 
dition reached  in  the  time  of  the  early  monuments, 
does  not  require  a  term  of  five  or  six  thousand  3^ears, 
as  M.  Bunsen  argues,§  but  rather  one  of  five  or  six 
hundred  3'ears,  which  is  what  the  Biblical  numbers 
will  allow.  There  is  nothing  surprising  in  a  high 
civilisation,  even  within  a  very  short  time  from  the 
Deluge  ;  for  the  arts  of  life,  Avhich  flourished  in  the 
ante-diluvian  world, ||  would  have  been  preserved  by 
those  who  survived  the  catastrophe,  and  might  rapidly 
revive  among  their  descendants.  Bather,  it  is  surpris- 
ing that,  except  in  Egypt,  there  should  be  so  few  traces 
of  "an  early  civilisation.     Babylonian  art,  for  many  cen- 

*  Wilkinson  in  the  writer's  '  ITcrodotus,'  vol.  ii.  p.  343 ;  Stuart  Poole  in 
the  'Biblical  Dictionary,'  vol.  i.  ]>.  508. 

t  Sir  II.  Rawliuson  in  the  writer's  *  Herodotus,'  vol.  i.  p.  435. 

X  The  "  flint  weapons  in  the  drift,"  and  Mr.  Horner's  Egyptian  pottery, 
will  be  said  to  be  such  vestiges.  But  the  cxtrcmelv  doubtful  age  of  the 
latter  has  been  well  shown  by  the  'Quarterly  Review'  (No.  2lu,  pp.  41'.t-421). 
The  value  of  the  former  as  evidence  of  extreme  human  antiquity  must  depend 
on  two  questions,  neither  of  which  has  yet  been  solved — 1.  Are  they  of  the 
same  age  as  the  formation  in  which  they  are  found '?  and  2.  Is  that  forma- 
tion itself  of  an  antiquity  very  remote?  It  has  been  clearly  shown  by  a 
writer  in  'Blackwood's  Magazine'  (No.  540,  pn.  422-430),  that  the  high  an- 
tiquitv  of  the  drift  is  at  anv  rate  "not  proven. 

§  'Egypt,'  vol.  iv.  p.  571.  i  Gen.  iv.  20-22. 


298  ^II^S  '^^  FAITH.  [Essay  VI 

turies  after  the  first  establishment  of  tlie  kingdom  (b.c. 
2458),  is  exceedingly  rude  and  primitive  ;  the  Greek 
and  Italian  buildings,  approaching  to  the  same  date, 
are  of  the  roughest  construction  ;  it  is  not  till  about 
the  year  e.g.  1000  that  a  really  advanced  civilisation 
appears  in  any  part  of  Asia,  nor  much  before  b.c.  600 
that  it  can  be  traced  in  Europe.  Thus,  monumental 
and  historical  evidence  alike  indicate  that  the  ^'  Ori- 
gines  "  of  our  race  are  recent,  and  the  dates  established 
on  anything  like  satisfactory  evidence,  fall,  in  every 
case,  within  the  time  allowed  to  post-diluvian  man  by 
Scripture. 

For  the  date  of  the  Deluge,  Avhicli  we  are  most 
justified  in  drawing  from  the  Sacred  documents,  is  not, 
as  commonly  supposed,  b.c.  2348,  but  rather  b.c.  3099, 
or  even  b.c.  3159 — sixty  years  earlier.*  The  modern 
objectors  to  the  Chronology  of  Scripture  seek  common- 
ly to  tie  down  their  opponents  to  the  j^resent  Hebrew 
text  ;f  but  there  is  no  reason  why  they  should  submit 
to  this  restriction.  The  Septuagint  Version  was  re- 
garded as  of  primary  authority  during  the  first  ages  of 
the  Christian  Church :  it  is  the  version  commonly 
quoted  in  the  NQ^Y  Testament ;  and  thus,  where  it 
clifl:ers  from  tlie  Hebrew,  it  is  at  least  entitled  to  equal 
attention.  Tlie  larger  chronology  of  the  Septuagint 
would,  therefore,  even  if  it  stood  alone,  have  as  good  a 
claim  as  the  shorter  one  of  the  Hebrew  text,  to  be  con- 
sidered the  Chronology  of  Scripture.  It  does  not,  how- 
ever, stand  alone.  For  the  period  between  the  Flood 
and  Abraham,  the  Septuagint  has  the  support  of  an- 
other ancient  and  independent  version — the  Samaritan. 
It  is  argued  that  the  Septuagint  numbers  were  enlarged 
by  the  Alexandrian  Jews  in  order  to  bring  the  Hebrew 
chronology  into  harmony  with  the  Egyptian  ;:j:  but  there 
is  no  conceivable  reason  why  the  Samaritans  should 
have  altered  their  Pentateuch*  in  this  direction,  and  no 

*  See  the  '  Biblical  Dictionary,'  sub  voc.  Cuuonologt,  and  Mr.  W.  Palm- 
er's 'Egyptian  Chronicles,'  p.  St'G. 

t  Bunsen,  '  Egypt,'  vol.  iv.  p.  402 ;  *  Westminster  Review,'  No.  SS,  p.  5C9 ; 
*  Essays  and  Reviews,'  })p.  54,  55. 

X  '  Westminster  Review,'  1.  s.  c. ;  Bunsen,  *  Egypt,'  vol.  i.  p.  185 ;  vol.  iv. 
r>.  3i)6. 


Essay  VI.]  THE  PENTATEUCH.  299 

very  ready  mode  of  accounting  for  the  identity'^  of  the 
numbers  in  these  two  versions,  but  by  supposing  that 
they  are  the  real  numbers  of  the  originah  This  iden- 
tity it  has  been  usual  to  keep  out  of  sight ;  but  it  is  a 
most  important  feature  in  the  case,  and  furnishes  a 
solid  ground  for  preferring,  apart  from  all  historical 
considerations,  that  longer  system  of  Biblical  Chronol- 
ogy with  which  Egyptian  and  all  other  profane  history 
is  found  to  be  in  accordance. 

Besides  the  purely  historic  objections  to  the  Bibli- 
cal Chronology  which  have  been  here  examined,  an- 
other semi-historic  one  has  been  recently  taken,  which 
seems  to  require  some  notice.  Languages,  it  is  said, 
bear  traces  of  having  all  proceeded  from  a  common 
stock.  Time  was,  when  "  the  whole  earth  was  of  one 
language  and  of  one  speech."t  But  this  time  must 
have  been  immensely  remote.  Languages  grow  but 
slowly.  It  has  taken  nearly  2000  years  to  develop 
modern  French,  Italian,  and  Spanish  out  of  Latin. 
Must  it  not  have  taken  much  longer  to  develop  Latin, 
Greek,  German,  Celtic,  Slavonic,  Zend,  Sanscrit,  out 
of  their  mother-speech  ?  And  that  mother-speech  itself 
which  had  an  affinity,  and  so  a  connexion,  with  the 
Semitic  and  Turanian  forms  of  language,  yet  was  far 
more  widely  separated  from  them  than  its  daughter 
tongues  from  one  aiiother,  what  a  vast  period  must 
have  been  required  for  its  formation  and  divergence 
from  the  other  linguistic  types  !  Even  the  primitive 
toni^nie  itself  did  not  spring  to  its  full  height  at  once,  or 
reach  the  era  of  decay  and  change  till  after  a  long  term 
of  years.  Twenty-one  thousand  years—"  the  period  of. 
one  great  revolution  of  tlie  globe  upon  its  axis  "—is  (we 
are  told)  ''  a  very  probable  term  for  the  development  of 
human  language  in  the  shortest  line  ;"  and  so  the  con- 
clusion is  drawn,  that  the  true  era  of  man's  creation  is 
not  B.C.  0085,  when  Egyptian  history  is  said  to  have 

*  The  identity  is  complete,  if  we  reject  from  the  Sei^tuagint  the  Hilse 
rpnrliufr  of  some  copies  (17"J  forV'.t)  in  Gen.  xi.  24,  and  omit  the  interpolated 
CaS  .',0  was",°!;k,l\vn  to  PW  o  Jusc,,hu.s  Thccphilus  »  Anljod,  and 
Euscbiis.    (See  Clinton's  '  l-'asti  llellciuc.,'  vol.  i.  p.  -J-?  ;    Hiblical  Oiction- 

>       I    :   «   "Hi  ^  T  Mfu.  XI.  1. 

ury,'  vol.  1.  p.  orj.) 


300  ^IDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  VI. 

begun,  nor  b.c.  14,000,  when  Plamitism  and  Semitism 
were  first  ''  deiDosited,"  but  six  thousand  years  before 
the  earlier  of  these  two  dates — e.g.  20,000  l^ 

This  argument  claims  an  inductive  character.  It 
bases  itself  on  the  historical  ground,  that  a  certain 
number  of  years  have  been  required  for  the  develop- 
ment of  French,  Italian,  Sj)anish,  Wallachian,  &c.,  out 
of  Latin  ;  and  assumes  that  from  this  the  rate  of  change 
or  growth  in  language  is  determinately,  or  approxi- 
mately, known.  The  rate  is  viewed  as  relative  to  tlie 
degree  of  change  or  divergence,  so  that  as  Celtic,  Sla- 
vonic, German,  Greek,  Latin,  and  Sanscrit  are  far  more 
unlike  one  another  than  French,  Italian,  and  Spanish, 
a  far  longer  period  must  be  allowed  for  their  forma- 
tion.f  The  argument  thus  gathers  strength  at  each 
stage  ;  and  as  there  are  at  least  four  stages,  the  formula 
becomes  something  very  much  like  this  : — a  +  lOa+lOO 
a-\-1000a=s;  so  that  it  may  seem  a  moderate  esti- 
mate to  say,  that  5=21,000  years. 

But  the  following  considerations  detract  from  the 
force  of  the  reasoning.  The  induction  on  which  it  rests 
is  from  a  single  instance — the  case  of  Latin  and  its 
daughter  tongues.  It  does  not  at  all  follow,  that 
because  a  particular  language  under  particular  cir- 
cumstances took  a  certain  time  to  blossom  into  new 
tongues  ;  therefore,  every  other  language  of  a  similar 
type,  w^ould,  under  all  conceivable  circumstances,  do 
the  same. 

The  unit  which  is  assumed  to  be  known,  and  which 
is  made  the  basis  of  the  whole  calculation — the  a  of  the 
above  equation — is  in  reality  unknown.  It  is  impos- 
sible to  say  how  long  it  took  for  Latin  to  change  into 
French  or  Italian.  Latin  was  probably  imperfectly 
learnt  by  the  Italians  and  the  Gauls  from  the  first,  and 
a  language  far  more  like  Italian  than  classical  Latin 
was  probably  spoken  in  the  provinces  of  Italy  at  a  very 
early  date.     We  know  at  the  utmost  what  the  date  is 

*  Bunsen,  *  Egypt/  vol.  iv.  pp.  560-506,  and  p.  485. 

t  "  If  the  step  from  Latin  to  Italian  be  taken  as  a  unit,  the  previous  step 
must  be  reckoned  at  least  at  ten  or  at  twenty."  (Bunsen's  *  Egypt,'  vol.  iv. 
Vp.  5t)2,  503.) 


Essay  VI.]  THE  PENTATEUCH.  301 

of  tlie  first  extant  Frencli  or  Italian  document.  We 
have  no  means  of  deciding  when  Frencli  or  Italian  first 
began  to  be  a  spoken  tongue. 

"The  argument  assumes  as  certain  that  equal  linguis- 
tic changes  must  have  occupied  equal  periods  of  time 
at  all  portions  of  the  world's  history,  which  is  much 
the  same  as  to  assume  that  constitutional  changes  in 
states  must  be  equal  in  equal  times  ;  or  that,  because 
B,  a  youth  of  eighteen,  5  ft.  10  in.  high,  grew  half  an 
inch  between  the  1st  of  January,  1860,  and  the  1st  of 
January,  ISGl,  therefore  he  grew  at  the  same  rate  all 
his  previous  lifetime.  Such  an  assumption,  were  it  ap- 
plied to  discover  the  age  of  the  youth  by  one  who  pos- 
sessed no  other  data,  might  lead  to  the  conclusion  that 
he  verged  upon  140  !  It  is  quite  possible  that  similar 
reasoning,  applied  to  the  age  of  language,  may  liave 
produced  a  term  of  years  almost  equally  in  excess  of 
the  truth. 

ISTot  only  the  analogy  of  growth  generally,  but  cer- 
tain known  linguistic  facts  favour  the  view,  that  when 
language  was  still  young,  it  grew  with  a  rapidity  quite 
unknown  to  its  later  stages.  Nothing  so  much  tends 
to  fix  and  stereotype  a  language  as  a  literature.  When, 
therefore,  there  was  as  yet  no  literature  to  keep  the 
vagaries  of  speech  in  check,  it  would  have  been  in  a 
perpetual  flux  and  change,  and  may,  in  a  comparatively 
short  space,  have  undergone  the  greatest  modifications. 
Again,  when  literature  is  wanting,  yet  men  live  to- 
gether in  political  communities  of  a  large  size,  the 
requirements  of  social  intercourse  with  a  wide  circle  act 
as  a  safeguard  against  rapid  dialectical  change.  But 
in  the  simpler  and  earlier  times,  before  such  communi- 
ties were  formed,  when  men  were  chiefly  or  wholly 
homadcs,  and  lived  in  small  and  isolated  bodies  with- 
out much  intercourse  with  one  another,  this  check 
would  not  have  existed.  Linguistic  changes  may, 
under  such  circumstances,  have  taken  place  with  ex- 
traordinary quickness,  and  a  growth  equal  to  that, 
which  would  in  later  times,  and  under  other  circum- 
stances,  have   required  five  hundred    or   a   thousand 


302  -^II^S  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  VI. 

years,  may  have  been  contained  within  an  ordinary 
lifetime.  "  Tribes,"  says  Professor  M.  Mliller,  "  who 
have  no  literatm-e,  and  no  sort  of  intellectual  occupa- 
tion, seem  occasionally  to  take  a  delight  in  working 
their  language  to  the  highest  pitch  of  grammatical  ex- 
pansion. The  American  dialects  are  a  w^ell-known  in- 
stance ;  and  the  greater  the  seclusion  of  a  tribe,  the 
more  amazing  the  rank  vegetation  of  their  grammar. 
We  can,  at  present,  hardly  form  a  correct  idea  with 
what  feeling  a  savage  nation  looks  upon  its  language  ; 
whether,  it  may  be,  as  a  plaything,  a  kind  of  intellect- 
ual amusement — a  maze  in  which  the  mind  likes  to  lose 
and  to  find  itself.  But  the  result  is  the  same  every- 
where. If  the  work  of  agglutination  has  once  com- 
menced, and  there  is  nothing  like  literature  or  society 
to  keep  it  within  limits,  two  villages,  separated  only 
for  a  few  generations,  will  become  mutually  unintel- 
ligible. This  takes  place  in  America,  as  well  as  on  the 
borders  of  China  and  India  ;  and  in  the  north  of  Asia, 
Messerschmidt  relates,  that  the  Ostiakes,  though  really 
speaking  the  same  language  everywhere,  have  pro* 
duced  so  many  words  and  forms  peculiar  to  each  tribe, 
that  even  within  the  limits  of  twelve  or  twenty  German 
miles,  conversation  between  them  becomes  extremely 
difiicult.  It  must  be  remembered  also,  that  the  Dic- 
tionary of  these  languages  is  small,  if  compared  with  a 
Latin  or  a  Greek  Thesaurus.  The  conversation  of  no- 
madic tribes  moves  within  a  narrow  circle  ;  and  with 
the  great  facility  of  forming  new  words  at  random,  and 
the  great  inducement  that  a  solitary  life  holds  out  to 
invent  for  the  objects  which  form  the  world  of  a  shep- 
herd or  huntsman,  new  appellations — half  poetical,  per- 
haps, or  satirical— we  can  understand  how,  after  a  few 
generations,  the  dictionary  of  a  nomadic  tribe  may  have 
gone,  as  it  were,  through  more  than  one  edition."^ 
These  observations,  which  are  made  in  reference  to 
Turanian  dialects,  have  a  more  extended  bearing.  They 
show  that  while  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth  continued 
nomadic,  and   without   a  literature,   language  would 

*  *  Philosophy  of  Universal  History,'  vol.  iii.  p.  4S3. 


Essay  VI.]  THE   I'KNTATEUCfl.  3q3 

alter  at  a  rate  very  much  beyond  tliat  Avhicli  is  found 
to  prevail  since  they  have  gathered  into  large  com- 
munities, each  with  its  own  treasure  of  written  law, 
legend,  or  history. 

JFurther,  it  is  obvious  to  remark  that  the  whole  argu- 
ment turns  upon  a  theory  of  language,  which  can 
never  be  anything  more  than  an  hypothesis — a  theory, 
moreover,  which  ignores  altogether  the  confusion  of 
Eabel,  ascribing  as  it  does  all  the  changes  and  diver- 
sities of  human  speech  to  the  operation  of  natural 
causes.  Those  persons  who  believe  the  miracle  re- 
corded in  Gen.  xi.  1-9,  will  see  that  if  the  Divine  fiat 
j)roduced  in  a  moment  of  time  a  number  of  diversities 
of  speech,  which  in  the  natural  course  of  things  would 
only  have  gradually  been  developed,  language  can- 
not but  present  the  appearance  of  being  older  than  it 
really  is. 

It  seems,  therefore,  that  nothing  has  really  been  as 
yet  discovered,  either  in  the  facts  of  history,  or  in  those 
of  language,  that  militates  against  the  chronological 
scheme  of  Scripture,  if  we  regard  the  Septuagintand 
Samaritan  versions  as  the  best  ex2:)onents  of  the  orig- 
inal text  in  respect  of  the  genealogy  of  the  Patriarchs 
from  Shem  to  Abraham.  Whether  the  chronology  of 
these  versions  admits  of  further  expansion  ;  whether, 
since  the  chronologies  of  the  Hebrew  Bible,  the  Sa- 
maritan Pentatcucli,  and  the  Septuagint  difier,  we  can 
depend  on  any  one  of  them  ;  or  whether  we  must  not 
consider  that  this  portion  of  revelation  has  been  lost 
to  us  by  the  mistakes  of  copyists  or  the  intentional  al- 
terations of  system atisers,  it  is  not  necessary  at  present 
to  determine.  "  Our  treasure,"  as  before  observed,  ^'  is 
in  earthen  vessels."  The  revealed  "Word  of  God  has 
been  continued  in  the  world  in  the  same  way  as  other 
written  compositions,  by  the  multiplication  of  copies. 
Ko  miraculous  aid  is  vouchsafed  to  the  transcribers, 
who  are  liable  to  make  mistakes,  and  may  not  always 
have  been  free  from  the  design  of  bending  Scri])ture  to 
their  own  views.  That  we  have  a  wonderfully  pure 
and  perfect  text  of  the  Pentateuch,  considering  its  an- 


304  ^I^S  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  YI. 

tiquity,  is  admitted  ;  but  doubts  must  ever  attach  to 
the  chronology,  not  only  because  in  all  ancient  MSS. 
numbers  are  especially  liable  to  accidental  corruption, 
but  also,  and  more  especially,  from  the  fact  that  there 
is  so  wide  a  difference  in  this  respect  between  the 
Hebrew,  the  Samaritan,  and  the  Greek  copies."^  Still, 
at  present,  w^e  have  no  need  to  suppose  that  the  num- 
bers have  in  every  case  suffered.  All  the  requirements 
of  profane  history  are  sufficiently  met  by  the  adoption 
of  the  Se]3tuagint  and  Samaritan  date  for  the  Deluge  ; 
and  this  is  the  date  which  is  really  most  authoritative, 
since  it  has  in  its  favour  two  out  of  the  three  ancient 
versions. 

II.  An  authentic  character  is  denied  to  the  Penta- 
teuch on  account  of  the  narrative  contained  in  it  of  the 
great  Flood.  This  narrative  is  inewed  as  the  tradi- 
tional representation  of  a  real  event,  but  as  unhistoric 
in  most  of  its  details,  and  more  especially  as  untrue  in 
regard  to  the  assertion  which  is  so  strongly  made,  that 
all  mankind,  except  a  single  family,  were  destroyed  on 
the  occasion.f  The  Deluge,  it  is  said,  was  local,  affect- 
ing only  that  portion  of  Asia  in  which  were  located  the 
Arians  and  the  Semites.  It  did  not  extend  to  the 
Egyptians,  or  to  the  Chinese,  or  to  the  Turanian  races 
generally.  This  conclusion  is  professedly  drawn  from 
"  the  infallible  linguistic  science,"  if  or,  in  other  words, 
from  those  views  of  the  history  of  language,  the  changes 
it  has  undergone,  and  the  time  occupied  by  them, 
wdiich  have  been  just  shown  to  be  arbitrar}^  and  not 
very  tenable  hypotheses.  It  is  further  regarded  as  con- 
firmed by  the  alleged  fact,  that  while  among  most  of 
the  Semitic  and  Arian  races  there  was  a  distinct  and 
clear  tradition  of  the  Flood,  as  among  the  Babylonians, 
the  Indians,  the  Armenians,  the  Phrygians,  the  Lithu- 
anians, the  Goths,  the  Celts,  and  the  Greeks  ;  neither 
in  China,  nor  in  Egypt,  nor  among  the  "  old  Turani- 

*  Although  in  the  list  of  patriarchs  from  Shcm  to  Abraham,  the  Samari- 
tan and  the  Scptuagint  coincide,  they  differ  widely  in  the  preceding  list  from 
Adam  to  Noah,  The  Samaritan  has" there  a  term  of  years  even  shorter  than 
the  Hebrew. 

t  Gen.  vii.  21-23.       X  Buuseu, '  Egypt,'  vol.  iv.  p.  472,  and  p.  659. 


EssatVI.]  the  PENTATEUCH.  3Q5 

ans"  was  any  such  tradition  current.  Here  the  argu- 
ment is  strong  ;  but  it  attains  its  strength  by  a  combi- 
nation of  exaggeration  on  the  one  side,  with  understate- 
ment on  the  other.  It  is  not  true  that  "  we  find  aUu- 
sions  to  the  Flood  everywhere  among  the  Iranians  and 
Semites.'-'^  The  Flood  does  not  appear  in  the  Zenda- 
vesta  ;  it  was  not,  so  far  as  is  known,  among  the  tra- 
ditions of  the  Arabs,  or  the  Phoenicians,  or  the  Romans, 
or  the  Slaves.  On  the  other  hand,  traditions  of  it  were 
not  entirely  wanting  in  China,  in  Egypt,  or  among  the 
Turanians. 

The  Chinese  speak  of  a  "first  heaven" — an  age  of 
innocence,  when  "  the  whole  creation  enjoyed  a  state 
of  happiness ;  when  everything  was  beautiful,  every- 
thing was  good  ;  all  beings  were  perfect  in  their  kind ;" 
whereto  succeeded  a  "  second  heaven,"  introduced  by  a 
great  convulsion.  "  The  pillars  of  heaven  were  broken — 
the  earth  shook  to  its  foundations — the  heavens  sunk 
lower  towards  the  north — the  sun,  the  moon,  and  the 
stars  changed  their  motions — the  earth  fell  to  pieces : 
and  the  waters  enclosed  loithin  its  losom  hurst  forth 
with  violence^  and  overfloioed  it.  Man  having  rebelled 
against  heaven,  the  system  of  the  universe  was  totally 
disordered.  The  sun  was  eclipsed,  the  planets  altered 
their  courses,  and  the  grand  harmony  of  nature  was 
disturbed. "f 

In  Egypt,  according  to  Plato,  the  teaching  of  the 
priests  was,  not  that  there  had  been  no  Deluge,  but  that 
there  had  been  several.  They  believed  that  from  time 
to  time,  in  consequence  of  the  anger  of  the  Gods,  the 
earth  was  visited  by  a  terrible  catastrophe.  The  agent 
of  destruction  was  sometimes  fire,  sometimes  water. 
In  the  conflagrations,  all  countries  were  burnt  up  but 
Egypt,  which  was  protected  by  the  Nile ;  and  in  the 
deluges,  all  were  submerged  except  Egypt,  where  rain 
never  fell.  The  last  catastrophe,  they  said,  had  been  a 
deluge ;  it  took  place  above  8000  years  before  Solon, 
and  not  only  swej)t  away  the  Greeks,  as  they  were 
themselves  aware,  but  permanently  submerged  a  vast 

*  Bunsen,  'Egypt,'  vol.  iv.  p.  404. 

t  Fabcr,  '  Ilonu  Mosaica?,'  cli.  iv.  pp.  147,  148. 


306  -^11^3  TO  FAITU.  [E6SAYVL 

island  in  the  Atlantic  Ocean,  previously  tlie  seat  of  a 
great  conquering  monarchy.*  It  does  not  destroy  the 
traditional  character  of  these  latter  statements,  that  they 
are  coupled  with  a  theory  of  repeated  mundane  catas- 
trophes ;  neither  does  it  much  lessen  the  value  of  the 
evidence,  in  the  case  of  a  people  making  such  absurd 
pretensions  to  antiquity  as  the  Egyptians,  that  Egypt  is 
supposed  to  have  been  exempt  from  the  general  ruin. 
M.  Bunsen  admits  that  the  oldest  traditions  of  Egypt 
"  seem  here  and  there  to  retain  the  echoes  of  a  knowl- 
edge of  some  violent  convulsions  in  nature,"f  while  he 
denies  that  these  traditions  constitute  a  reminiscence  of 
the  historical  Elood.  It  is  at  least  as  reasonable  to  hold 
that  the  one  convulsion  of  which  they  had  some  real 
knowledge  was  that  great  catastrophe,  and  that  in  re- 
gard to  the  rest  they  merely  represented  historically  the 
conclusions  at  which  they  liad  arrived  by  sj^eculation. 

With  regard  to  the  belief  of  the  Turanian  races,  it 
may  be  true  that  those  of  Europe  and  Asia  have  no  tra- 
ditions of  a  Deluge  among  them,  ahhough  tliis  point  has 
hardly  been  as  yet  sufficiently  established  ;  but  if  we 
hold  (as  is  now  commonly  done):}:  the  Malays  to  be  a  Tu- 
ranian offshoot,  and  the  Polynesian  islanders  to  be  Ma- 
lays, then  it  must  be  allowed  that  traces  of  a  belief  in 
the  Deluge  exist  also  in  this  ethnic  famil}^  ''  Tradi- 
tions of  the  Deluge,"  says  Mr.  Ellis,  "  have  been  found 
to  exist  among  tlie  natives  of  the  South  Sea  Islands, 
from  the  earliest  periods  of  their  history.  .  .  .  The 
principal  facts  are  the  same  in  the  traditions  prevailing 
among  the  inhabitants  of  the  different  groups,  although 
they  differ  in  several  minor  particulars.  In  one  group 
the  accounts  stated,  that  in  ancient  times  Taarsa,  the 
principal  god  according  to  their  mythology,  being  angry 
with  men  on  account  of  their  disobedience  to  his  will, 
overturned  the  world  into  the  sea,  when  the  earth  sunk 
in  the  waters,  excepting  a  few  projecting  points,  which, 
remaining  above  its  surface,  constituted  the  present  clus- 

*  'Timseus/  p.  21.  t  'Esjypt/  vol.  iv.  p.  550. 

X  M.  MuUcr,  111  the  *  Philosophy  of  Universal  History,'  vol.  iii.  pp.  403- 
429;  'Languages  of  the  Scat  of  War,'  p.  110,  1st  edition. 


E5SATVI.]  THE  PENTATEUCH.  397 

ter  of  islands.  The  memorial  preserved  by  the  inhabi- 
tants of  Eimeo  states,  that  after  the  inundation  of  tlie 
land,  Avhen  the  water  subsided,  a  man  landed  from  a 
canoe  near  Tiataepna  in  their  island,  and  erected  an  al- 
tar in  honour  of  his  god.  The  tradition  which  prevails 
in  the  Leeward  Ishinds  is  intimately  connected  with  the 
island  of  Eaiatea."  Here  the  story  is  that  a  fisherman 
disturbed  tlie  sea-god  with  his  hooks,  whereupon  the  god 
determined  to  destroy  mankind.  The  fisherman,  how- 
ever, obtained  mercy,  and  was  directed  to  take  refuge 
in  a  certain  small  islet,  whither  he  betook  himself  with 
his  wife,  his  child,  one  friend,  and  specimens  of  all  the 
domestic  animals.  The  sea  then  rose,  and  submerged 
the  other  islands,  destroying  all  the  inhabitants.  But 
the  fisherman  and  his  companions  were  unharmed,  and 
afterwards  removing  from  their  islet  to  Haiatea  became 
the  progenitors  of  the  present  people. ■^''  Thus,  if  the 
South  Sea  Islanders  belong  to  the  Turanian  family,  it 
Avould  seem  that  that  family,  no  less  than  the  Arian  and 
Semitic,  has  reminiscences  of  the  Great  Catastrophe 
which  once  befel  mankind. f 

The  result  is,  that  there  is  no  marked  difi:erence,  in 
respect  of  traditions  of  the  Deluge,  between  tlie  difierent 
races  of  men.  JSTo  race  is  without  soiiie  tradition  on  the 
subject,  while  in  none  is  the  tradition  spread  universally 
among  all  the  nations  into  which  the  race  subdivides. 
Various  circumstances  have  caused  the  event  to  be  viv- 
idly or  faintly  apprehended,  to  be  stored  in  the  memory 
of  a  nation,  or  to  be  allowed  to  fade  from  it.  If  the  Se- 
mitic tradition  is  the  clearest  and  most  circumstantial, 
while  the  Turanian  is  the  dimmest  and  slightest,  it  is 
IDrobably  because  the  Turanians  generally  were  without 
a  literature,  while  among  the  Semites  the  tradition  took 
a  written  form  earl}^  If  in  Egypt,  while  the  Deluge  is 
not  unknown,  it  makes  little  figure,  notwithstanding  the 
early  use  of  letters  in  that  country,  it  is  perhaps  because 
the  Egyptians  did  not  choose  to  keep  it  in  mind,  since, 

*  'Polynesian  Researches,'  vol.  ii.  pp.  57-59. 

+  The  Mexicans  and  Peruvians,  who  had  very  clear  traditions  of  the 
Flood,  were  also  probably  of  Turauiau  origin. 


308  -^I^S  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  VI. 

in  their  desire  to  be  considered  aiitoclithonoiis  and  of 
immense  antiquity,  tliej  seem  to  have  determinately 
severed  all  the  links  which  connected  them  with  their 
primitive  Asiatic  abodes."^  If,  on  the  contrary,  among 
the  Arians,  though  they  had  no  very  early  literature, 
the  reminiscence  is  vivid,  it  may  be  ascribed  to  the 
liveliness,  impressibility,  and  poetic  tone  of  their  minds, 
which  such  an  event  as  the  Deluge  was  calculated  to  af- 
fect strongly,  and  to  their  comj)arative  honesty,  which 
led  them  to  cherish  in  most  cases  the  traditions  uniting 
them  with  primitive  times. 

III.  The  objections  taken  to  the  ethnology  of  Gen- 
esis are  limited  to  two.  It  is  allowed  that  a  high  anti- 
quity, and  a  great  historical  value,  belong  to  the  Toldoth 
Beni  jSToah,  or  "  Book  of  the  generations  of  the  sons  of 
Noah,"  which  forms  the  tenth  chapter  of  the  First  Book 
of  Moses.  But  it  is  maintained  that  in  its  present  state 
this  chapter  is  the  work  of  a  "  compiler,"  who  misunder- 
stood his  materials,  and  that  it  requires  correction  from 
the  better  knowledge  of  the  moderns. f  The  two  mis- 
takes w^hich  are  especially  charged  on  the  document 
are — first,  that,  by  making  Canaan  a  son  of  Ham,  it 
connects  the  Canaanites  ethnically  wdth  the  Egyptians, 
whereas  they  were  an  entirely  distinct  people,  not  Ham- 
ites,  but  Semites ;  and  secondly,  that,  by  declaring  Cush 
to  have  begotten  Nimrod,  it  makes  that  conqueror  and 
his  kingdom  Ethiopian,  whereas  they  w^ere  in  reality 
CossEean,  and  so  Turanian  or  Scythic.  In  the  latter  case 
it  is  supposed  that  the  "  compiler"  was  misled  by  a  re- 
semblance of  words ;  in  the  former,  that  he  misinter- 
preted a  geographical  fact  ethnically. 

But  the  latest  research  tends  to  vindicate  the  etlmol- 

*  "  The  evidence  of  the  Egyptians,"  says  Mr,  Stuart  Poole,  "  as  to  the 

primeval  history  of  their  race  and  country  is  extremely  indefinite There 

IS  a  very  short  and  extremely  obscure  time  of  tradition,  and  at  no  great  dis- 
tance from  the  earliest  date  at  which  it  can  be  held  to  end  we  come  upon  the 
clear  light  of  history  in  the  days  of  the  Pyramids.  The  indications  are  of  a 
sudden  change  of  scat,  and  the  settlement  in  Egypt  of  a  civilized  race,  which, 
either  wishing  to  be  believed  autochthonous,  oi'having  lost  all  ties  that  could 
keep  up  the  traditions  of  its  first  dwelling-place,  filled  up  the  commencement 
of  its  history  with  materials  drawn  from  rnythology."  ('  Biblical  Dictionary/ 
vol.  i.  p.  507.) 

t  Bunsen,  *  Egypt,'  vol.  iv.  p.  417. 


Essay  YI.]  THE   PENTATEUCH.  3Qg 

ogj  of  Genesis  in  botli  tlie  disputed  cases.  The  sup- 
posed Semitic  cliaracter  of  the  Canaanites  rests  upon 
two  grounds — iirst,  their  presumed  identity  with  the 
Phoenicians,  and  secondly,  the  Semitic  etymoloiry  of 
certain  Canaanitish  names — e.g.  Melchisedek,  Abime- 
lech,  Adonibezek,  Mamre,  Eshcol,  Kirjath-Arba,  iSzc. 
This  last  argument  is  undoubtedly  important,  though  it 
is  far  from  decisive.  For,  firstly,  language  is  not  a  cer- 
tain sign  of  race,  since  occasionally  a  nation  has  adopted 
a  completely  foreign  tongue.  Secondly,  the  names,  as 
given  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  are  perhaps  not 
Canaanitish  words  at  all,  but  only  the  Semitic  ecpiiva- 
lents  of  the  native  (Ilamitic)  terms.  Thirdly,  the  true 
stock  of  the  Canaanites  may  have  been  Ilamitic,  yet 
even  before  the  time  of  Abraham  they  may  have  re- 
ceived a  Semitic  infusion  from  the  valley  of  the  Eu- 
phrates; and  Semitic  names  may  thus  have  been  intro- 
duced among  them.  As  for  the  other  argument,  though 
it  has  great  names  in  its  favour,  there  is  really  very 
little  to  be  said  for  it.  Phoenicia,  as  a  country,  is  dis- 
tinguishable from  Canaan,  in  which  it  may,  perhaps, 
have  been  included,  but  of  which  it  was  at  any  rate 
only  a  part ;  and  the  Phoenician  people  present  in  many 
respects  a  strong  and  marked  contrast  to  the  Canaanites, 
60  that  there  is  great  reason  to  believe  that  they  were 
an  entirely  different  race.*  That  their  ethnic  charac- 
ter was  really  Ilamitic  seems  to  be  indicated  by  the 
Babylonian  tradition  in  Eupolemus,  f  that  Canaan  was 
the  grandfather  of  Cush  and  Mestraim  (JMizraim).  It 
is  further  evidenced  by  the  names  of  various  places  in 
their  country,  as  Baalbek,  "  the  house  of  Baal,"  where 
lek  is  the  Egyptian  root  found  in  Atarbechis,  "the 

*  See  the  writer's  ' Herodotus/  vol.  iv.  pp.  243-245,  where  the  point  is 
argued  at  length.  "  The  Canaanites,"  it  is  noted,  "  arc  fierce  and  intractable 
warriors,  rejoicing  in  the  prancing  steeds  and  chariots  of  iron,  neither  given 
to  commerce  nor  to  any  ot  the  arts  of  peace ;  the  Phoenicians  arc  quiet  and 
peaceable,  a  nation  of  traffickers,  skilful  in  navigation  and  in  the  arts  both 
useful  and  ornamental ;  unwarlike  except  at  sea,  and  wholly  devoted  to  com- 
merce.    Again,  whereas  between  the  real  Canaanites  and  the  Jews  there  was 


deadly  and  perpetual  hostility,  until  the  former  were  utterly  rooted  out  and 
tnc  Jews  and  Phoenicians  were  on  terms  of  perpetual  amity, —  an 
amity  encouraged  by  the  best  princes,  who  would  scarcely  have  contracted  a 


friendship  with  the  accursed  race." 
t  'Fragm.  Hist.  Gr.'  vol.  iii.  p.  212. 


310  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  VI. 

house  of  Atlior  " — Marathiis,  winch  seems  to  he  Martu^ 
the  Ilamitic  term  for  ''the West" — Beth-shan,  which 
in  Semitic  was  Beth-shemesh,  "  the  house  of  the  sun," 
&c.  finally,  it  is  thought  to  be  absohitely  proved  by 
the  Ilittite  names,  which  occur  abundantly  in  the  As- 
syrian inscriptions,  and  w^hich  are  found  to  be  unmistak- 
ably of  a  Hamitic  type  and  formation. 

The  Cushite  descent  of  the  Babylonians  has  still 
more  ample  evidence  in  its  favour.  Linguistic  research, 
harmonising  in  this  instance  at  once  with  classical  tradi- 
tion and  with  the  Scriptural  account,  shows  the  early 
Babylonians  to  have  been,  not  only  Ilamitic,  but  de- 
terminately  of  Cushite  origin.  "'^  All  the  ancient  Baby- 
lonian documents  are  in  a  dialect,  the  vocabulary  of 
which  has  a  closer  connexion  with  the  native  languages 
of  Abyssinia  than  with  any  other  known  form  of  speech. 
Nor  is  this  a  mere  coincidence.  The  evidence  of  monu- 
ments (Himyaric,  Chaldean,  and  Susian)  shows,  that  a 
homogeneous  race  was  spread  in  very  ancient  times 
from  the  country  upon  the  Upper  ISTile,  along  the 
southern  coast  of  Arabia,  to  the  shores  of  the  Persian 
Gulf,  and  thence  into  Susiana,  whence  it  probably 
passed,  by  way  of  Gedrosia,  to  India.  M.  Bunsen 
decides  that  "  an  Asiatic  Kush  (or  Ethiopia)  exists  only 
in  the  imagination  of  Biblical  interpreters,  and  is  the 
child  of  their  despair. "  f  But  ancient  lore  and  modern 
research  are  equally  against  this  view.  Homer  knew 
the  Ethiopians  to  be  "divided,"  and  to  dwell  ''towards 
the  rising  and  the  setting  sun.  "  X  Hesiod  made  Mem- 
non,  the  son  of  the  Dawn,  and  the  traditional  founder 
of  Susa,  an  Ethiopian  king.  §  Pindar  taught  that  this 
same  Memnon  brought  an  army  of  Ethiopians  to  the 
relief  of  Troy.  ||  Herodotus  was  told  of  Asiatic  Ethio- 
pians as  contained  within  the  Persian  empire,  and 
assigned  them  their  place  in  the  satrapies  of  Darius,  T 
and  in  the  army  of  Xerxes." -      Ephorus  gave  all  the 

*  Sir  H.  Rawlinson,  in  the  writer's  'Herodotus,'  vol.  i.  p.  442,  note:  com- 
pare Kalisch,  '  Comment,  on  Genesis,'  p.  174,  E.  T. 
t  '  Philosophy  of  Universal  History,'  vol,  iii.  p.  191. 

X  'Odyssev,'  i.  23,  24.  §  'Thcogonia,'  9S4,  9S5. 

I  'Nemca,"  iii.  G2,  03.  H  Herod,  iii.  94.  **  Ibid.  vii.  TO. 


Essay  YI.]  THE  PENTATEUCH.  31  j 

shores  of  the  Erythraean  Sea,  or  Southern  Ocean,  to  the 
Ethiopians ;  *  and  so,  according  to  Strabo,  did  the 
ancient  Greek  writers  generally,  f  The  names  Kissia, 
and  Koss£ea,  Kusan, :[:  and  Kutch  or  Kooch,  which 
have  clung  to  portions  of  the  south  coast  of  Asia,  from 
the  time  of  Herodotus  to  the  present  day,  confirm  the 
classical  belief — a  belief  which  is  further  evidenced  by 
the  genealogists,  who  almost  universally  connect  Belus, 
the  mythic  progenitor  of  the  Babylonians,  with  yEgyp- 
tus  and  Libya.  §  Thus  the  Asiatic  Ethiopia,  which  is 
mentioned  more  than  once  in  Scripture,  ||  is  no  guess 
or  myth,  but  an  established  fact ;  and  to  this  Ethiopia 
it  appears  that  both  early  Babylon  and  the  neighbour- 
ing countries  of  Susiana  and  Southern  Arabia  belonged. 

The  "Toldoth  Beni  Noah,"  therefore,  instead  of 
proving  incorrect  on  the  two  points  where  its  accuracy 
has  been  most  recently  challenged,  is  found  in  regard 
to  them  singularly  to  accord  with  the  latest  results  of 
philological  and  ethnological  research.^  Indeed  that 
document,  which  has  been  well  called  "the  most 
authentic  record  that  we  possess  for  the  affiliation  of 
races,"  **  is  continually  receiving  fresh  illustration  and 
confirmation  from  the  progress  of  modern  discovery, 
and  is  probably  destined  to  become,  as  time  goes  on,  a 
continually  stronger  evidence  of  the  historic  accuracy 
of  Genesis. 

lY.  Of  all  the  attempts  made  to  invalidate  the  his- 
torical character  of  the  Pentateuch,  the  boldest  is  that 
which,  starting  from  an  observation  of  the  resemblance 
of  the  names  given  in  the  two  genealogies  of  the  Setli- 
ites  and  the  CainiteSjff  proceeds  to  argue  that  they  are 

*  Ap.  Strab.  i.  2,  §  2S,  t  Strab.  i.  2,  §  27. 

X  Kusan  was  the  name  given  to  the  country  cast  of  Kermau  throughout 
the  whole  of  the  Sussanian  period. 

§  Phcrccyd.  Fr.  40;  Charax  Pcrg.  ap.  Stepli.  Byz.  .s.  too.  A'^yvirros : 
Apollodor.  ii.  1,  §  4;  Eupolemus  ap.  Alex.  Polyhist.  Fr.  3;  Johann.  Antio- 
chen.  Fr.  6,  §  15. 

II  Gen.  ii.  13;  Ezck.  xxxviii.  n. 

*iy  In  connexion  with  this  subject  'Mr.  R.  S.  Poole's  articles  on  '  The  Ca- 
iiaanites,'  and  '  Cush '  in  Dr.  Smith's  '  Biblical  Dictionary/  arc  recommcuded 
to  the  reader's  attention. 

**  Sir  II.  Kawlinson  in  the  'Journal  of  the  Asiatic  Society,'  vol.  xv.  p.  230. 

tt  Gcu.  iv.  17-'J..i;  Geu.  v.  3-32. 


312  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  VI. 

really  representations  of  one  and  the  same  list,  with 
variations  in  the  order  and  in  the  orthography,  which 
variations  destroy  the  authority  of  both,  and  show  that 
nothing  has  come  down  to  us  but  a  document  founded 
on  "a  misunderstanding  of  the  earliest  records."*  "!N'ot 
having  one  tradition,  but  two,"  we  have,  it  is  argued, 
in  reality,  "  no  historical  account."  We  may,  there- 
fore, suppose  that  neither  list  contains  any  actual 
genealogy  at  all.  We  may  view  the  names  as  ideal  or 
mythical,  signilicative  of  nations,  nations,  or  epochs; 
and  we  may  then  construct  a  history  of  the  Old  World 
according  to  our  fancy,  with  very  little  check  indeed 
upon  our  faculty  of  invention. 

Now  the  facts  of  the  case  are  simply,  that  in  the 
two  genealogies,  which  differ  both  at  the  beginning  and 
at  the  end,  six  consecutive  names  occur,  of  which  two 
are  identical,  wdiile  the  remaining  four  have  more  or 
less  of  resemblance.  These  names  are  Cain,  Enoch, 
Irad,  Mehujael,  Methusael,  and  Lamecli  in  the  one  list ; 
Cainan,  Mahalaleel,  Jared,  Enoch,  Methuselah,  and 
Lamech  in  the  other.  The  names  Enoch  and  Lamecli 
(it  will  be  seen)  occur  in  both  lists  ;  of  the  rest,  Cain 
resembles  Cainan  ;  Irad,  Jared;  Mehujael,  Mahalaleel ; 
and  Methusael,  Methuselah.  The  resemblance,  how- 
ever, is  in  the  Hebrew  scarcely  so  great  as  in  the  Au- 
thorized Yersion.  Irad  differs  from  Jared  by  an  initial 
letter  of  peculiar  importance,  the  Hebrew  ain  (:£),  which 
had  a  strong  guttural  sound,  and  is  rarely  lost,  f  Malia- 
laleel  differs  from  Mehujael  by  one  entire  element  out 
of  the  two  which  make  it  up  ;  it  is  really  no  nearer  to 
Mehujael  than  Theodosius  to  Theophilus,  or  Jeroboam 
to  Jerubbaal.  In  Methusael,  and  Methuselah,  again, 
the  concluding  element  is  different,  there  being  ])rob- 
ably  no  connection  between  the  sad  or  shcCel  of  the 
one  and  the  selciK  or  shclach  of  the  other.  Fiirtlier, 
there  is  a  considerable  difference  in  the  order  which 

*  'Egypt's  Place,'  vol.  iv.  p.  395. 

t  In  the  LXX.  the  ain  is  represented  by  the  Greek  y.  There  the  two  names 
scarcely  retain  any  resemblance  at  all,  being  respectively  lared  ('lapeS)  and 
Gaidad  (rotSaS).  The  copies  used  by  the  LXX.  evidently  bad  *7  in  the  place 
of  ■>,. 


Essay  VI.]  THE  TENTATEUCII.  3^3 

the  names  hold  in  the  two  lists  ;  and  of  this  difference 
no  account  has  been  even  attempted.  The  second  name 
in  the  Cainite  list  is  the  fourth  in  the  list  of  the  Seth- 
ites ;  and  conversely  the  fourth  among  the  Cainites  is  a 
name  resembling  the  second  name  among  the  Sethites. 
Hence,  if  we  allow  the  names  to  correspond,  we  must 
say  that  the  two  lists  agree  in  no  single  relationship, 
except  only  that  of  the  last  pair.  Cain  is  tlie  son  of 
Adam  and  father  of  Enoch ;  but  Cainan  is  the  son  of 
Enos  and  father  of  Mahalaleel.  Enoch  the  Cainite  is 
the  son  of  Cain  and  father  of  Irad ;  but .  Enoch  the 
Sethite  is  the  son  of  Jared  and  father  of  Methuselah. 
Irad  is  son  of  Enoch  and  father  of  Mehujael ;  but  Jared 
is  son  of  Mahalaleel  and  father  of  Enoch.  Finally, 
Methusael  is  son  of  Mehujael,  but  Methuselah  of  Enoch ; 
and  Lamech  the  Sethite  is  father  of  [NToah,  but  Lamech 
the  Cainite,  of  Jabal,  Jubal,  and  Tubal-Cain.  Altogeth- 
er, while  the  amount  of  resemblance  in  the  two  lists  is 
certainly  remarkable,  the  amount  of  diversity  is  such 
as  very  clearly  to  distinguish  them  from  one  another. 
WJiere  confusion  was  most  likely  to  ensue — that  is  to 
say,  in  the  cases  of  the  two  identical  names  of  Enocli 
and  Lamech — the  narrative  in  one  or  tlie  other  list  is 
fuller  and  more  detailed  than  usual,  apparently  for  the 
very  purpose  of  guarding  against  the  mistake  of  identi- 
fication. All,  therefore,  that  can  fairly  be  concluded 
is,  that  in  the  two  families  of  the  Sethites  and  the 
Cainites,  as  in  the  two  kingdoms  of  Israel  and  Judah, - 
similar  appellations,  and  to  some  extent  the  same 
appellations,  prevailed.  It  would  seem  that  at  first 
men  were  slow  to  invent  new  names,  and  either  used 
the  old  names  over  again  or  modified  them  slightly. 
Thus  we  have  Enos  and  Enoch,  Adam  and  Adah'',\ 
Jabal,  Jiibal,  and  Tulal-Q^Wi,  where  no  one  suggests  an 
identification.  Probably  names  were  considered  of 
great  importance,  and  the  experiment  of  an  entirely 
new  name  was  not  readily  made. 

*  Takincc  tlio  five  consecutive  and  contcninorarv  monarrlis  of  <hoso  two 
kinirdoni.s,  wlio  follow  upon  Aliab  and  Jehosliaphut,  we  lind  three  naniea 
coninion  to  tlie  two  lists. 

t  The  resemblance  ia  less  iu  the  Hebrew,  but  still  it  is  real. 
U 


314  ^II^S  TO  FAITU.  [Essay  VL 

The  mythical  character  of  this  same  portion  of  the 
Biblical  liistory  has  been  further  based  upon  certain 
supposed  etymologies.  Seth,  we  are  informed,  repre- 
sents, not  a  man,  but  God  Himself,  since  Set  or  Sutekh 
was  an  old  Oriental  root  for  God,  and  Set  or  Suti  con- 
tinued to  be  an  Egyptian  deity .^  Enos  is  the  same  as 
Adam,  since  in  Aramaic  it  means  "  man,"  as  Adam 
does  in  Hebrew.f  Neither  are  real  names  of  persons, 
but  only  ideal  appellations  for  the  first  founder  of  our 
race.  Enoch,  "  the  seer  of  God,"  represents  a  religious 
period  intervening  between  the  time  of  the  marauder 
Cain,  and  that  of  the  agricultural  builder  of  cities  Irad.J 
At  the  same  time  he  is  "the  solar  year,"  since  tlie 
number  of  year>3  which  he  is  said  to  have  lived  coin- 
cides exactly  with  the  nnmber  of  days  in  that  division 
of  time.§  Cain  and  Irad  are  the  respective  typos  of 
the  nomadic  shepherd  races  and  the  agricultural  dwell- 
ers in  towns.  The  other  patriarchs  also  represent 
epochs ;  and  ]N'ahor,  the  grandfather  of  Abraham,  is 
ihe  first  real  Biblical  man.jj 

It  is  clear  that  all  history  whatsoever  may  be  made 
to  evaporate  under  such  treatment  as  this.  If  we  may 
guess  at  etymologies,  and  then  at  once  assume  om^ 
guesses  to  be  coincident  with  truth ;  if  we  may  regard 
all  significant  names  as  mythic,  and  the  personages  to 
whom  they  are  assigned  as  ideal,  there  is  no  portion  of 
the  world's  annals  which  may  not  with  a  very  little  in- 
genuity be  transferred  to  the  region  of  myth.  A  witty 
writer  noted  some  ten  years  since  the  certainty  that,  if 
such  views  prevailed,  a  famous  passage  from  the  eccle- 
siastical history  of  our  own  time  would  be  relegated  by 
posterity  to  tliat  shadowy  region ;  for  liow  could  it  be 
doubted  that  such  names  as  iSTewman,  Wiseman,  Mas- 
terman,  Philpotts,  Wilde,  were  "  fictitious  appellations 
invented  by  an  allegorist,  either  to  set  forth  certain 
qualities  or  attributes  of  certain  persons  whose  true 
names  were  concealed,  or  to  embody  certain  tendencies 

*  Bunsen,  '  Egypt,'  vol.  iv.  p.  203.  f  ]Yy\  V-  SS5. 

1  Ibid.  p.  GOO.  §  ll-iJ-  P-  389. 

B  Ibid.  p.  409. 


Essay  VI.]  THE  TENTATEUCU.  325 

of  the  times,  or  represent  certain  party  characteris- 
tics?"* Similarly  it  might  be  argued  that  Athenian 
history,  from  Draco  to  Pericles,  is  mythical — that  Draco 
was  intended  to  represent  the  bloody  and  cruel  spirit 
of  the  old  aristocracy,  Cylon  their  crooked  courses, 
Solon  the  first  establishment  of  a  sole  authority  (for  it 
would  seem  to  be  thought  allowable  to  draw  a  deriva- 
tion from  a  cognate  dialect),  Pisistratus  the  usurpation 
in  which  a  Q\\\Q,i ^^evsiiadcd  an  army  to  help  him,  Ilip- 
])ias,  Ilipparchus,  and  Thessalus,  the  time  when,  with  the 
aid  of  llicssahj,  the  cavcdry  service  was  first  fully  organ- 
ised, Isagoras  the  establishment  of  democracy,  Clisthe- 
nes  the  triumjyh  of  fliysical  strenyth^  Thcmistocles  the 
ascendancy  ofleno,  Aristides  the  completion  of  the  lest 
form  of  government,  Pericles  the  age  when  Athens  at- 
tained her  full  (jlory.  "Where  names  are  significant, 
and  their  etymology  is  accurately  known,  it  is  generally 
easy  to  bend  them  into  agreement  even  with  the  actual 
history  of  the  time.  IIow  much  more  easy  must  it  be, 
when  their  signification  is  unknown,  to  afiix  a  meaning 
on  plausible  grounds  which  shall  square  with  our  his- 
torical fancies ! 

But,  it  is  said,  the  histories  of  all  other  nations  run 
up  into  myth.  Can  the  Hebrews  be  a  solitary  excep- 
tion ?  This  is  simply  to  ask :  Can  there  be  direct  reve- 
lation at  all ;  or,  in  other  words,  can  God  or  a  Divine 
messenger  speak  to  man  face  to  face,  as  the  prophets 
declare  they  were  spoken  to  ?  If  He  can,  there  is  cer- 
tainly nothing  to  prevent  the  subject  matter  of  His  rev- 
elation from  being  historical.  And  the  beginnings  of 
human  history  might  in 'this  way  be  as  well  communi- 
cated as  any  other  facts,  past,  present,  or  future.  Kor 
is  it  at  all  impossible  tliat  tlie  true  history  may  have 
been  handed  down  in  one  line  by  an  undefilcd  tradi- 
tion, while  in  all  other  lines  it  was  corrupted.  The 
laws  which  govern  human  action  are  general,  not  uni- 

*  'Eclipse  of  Faith,'  pp.  317,  o4fi.     The  sicnificanco  of  Iwo  of  tlic  names 
bclorifrini;  to  this  passajxc  of  our  history  gave  occasion  to  the  followiii}^  coup- 
let, written  by  a  living  scholar  at  the  linie  of  the  "  Papal  Aggression  ": — 
"Cum  Sapionto  Tins  nostras  Jnravit  in  aras: 
Inipius  licu  Sapicus  inbipicu£(iae  riusl" 


31(3  ^IDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  VI. 

versal ;  and  an  exce})tion  is  so  mucli  a  matter  of  course 
tliat  some  regard  it  as  "  proving  the  rule."  It  is  un- 
pUilosopliicallo  assume,  merely  on  the  analogy  of  other 
nations,  that  the  Hebrew  ''  beginnings "  are  mythic. 
At  the  least,  they  ought  first  to  be  formally  compared 
with  the  ''  beginnings  "  of  those  other  nations,  and  only 
pronounced  mythic  if  found  to  resemble  them.  Such  a 
comparison  has  not  been  made  at  all  fully  as  yet ;  and, 
if  it  were  made,  would  exhibit  the  most  striking  diver- 
sity.* The  "  beginnings  "  of  other  races  have  an  air  of 
extravagance  about  tliem,  a  tone  of  quaintness  and 
grotesqueness  utterly  alien  from  the  "  Origines"  of  the 
Hebrews.  In  the  former  gods  have  their  heads  cut  off, 
or  devour  their  children,  or  undergo  marvellous  trans- 
formations, or  marry  their  mothers,  or  are  fished  up 
out  of  the  sea  by  fishermen,  or  are  otherwise  set  before 
us  in  ludicrous  aspects,  which  take  away  all  solemnity 
and  seriousness  from  the  narrative.  How  difi'erent 
from  this  is  the  simple  and  awful  grandeur  of  Genesis ! 
What  a  deep  and  solemn  earnestness  greets  us  in  the 
very  first  words !  What  sustained  seriousness  do  we 
find  throughout!  How  evident  that  we  are  on  holy 
ground,  in  the  hands  of  a  writer  who  does  not  dare  to 
jest  or  sport  with  things  divine,  wlio  is  no  fanciful  alle- 
gorlzer,  weaving  quaint  fables  to  delight  us  as  he  in- 
structs, but  one  who  speaks  as  in  the  presence  of  God, 
with  a  simple  reverent  solemnity,  incompatible  with 
any  conscious  departure  from  literal  truth !  It  is  im- 
possible to  illustrate  this  subject  to  any  large  extent 
here ;  but  the  reader  may  gain,  from  the  two  passages 
placed  below  in  parallel  columns,  a  tolerably  fair  notion 
of  the  extent  to  which  the  ''  Origines"  of  other  nations 
differ  in  tone  from  Genesis. 

Account  of  the  Creation  from  Account  of  the  Creation  from 

BEROsus.f  Genesis4 

"In    the  beginning    all   was  "In  the  beginning  God  cre- 

darkness  and  water,  and  therein  ated  the  heaven  and  the  earth. 

*  M.  Bunscn  makes  a  very  incomplete  comparison  in  the  fourth  vohmie 
of  his  *  Egypt'  (pp.  364-07r>).  He  cannot,  however,  even  proceed  so  far  as  he 
has  gone  without  being  struck  with  the  diversity  here  spoken  of.  (See  p.  374.) 

t  Ap.  Svncell.  '  Chronograph.'  vol.  i.  p.  53  ;  compare  Euseb.  *  Chrou,  Can.' 
i.  2;  pp.  ll,  12,  cd.  Mai.  J  Geu.  i.  1-S ;  24-27;  ii.  7. 


Essay  VI.] 


THE  PENTATEUCH. 


317 


were  generated  monstrous  ani- 
mals of  strange  and  peculiar 
forms.  There  were  men  with 
two  wings,  and  others  even  with 
four,  and  with  two  faces:  and 
others  with  two  heads,  a  man's 
and  a  woman's,  on  one  hody; 
and  there  were  men  with  the 
heads  and  the  horns  of  goats, 
and  men  with  hoofs  like  horses, 
and  some  with  the  upper  parts 
of  a  man  joined  to  the  lower 
parts  of  a  horse,  like  centaurs ; 
and  there  were  bulls  with  hu- 
man heads,  dogs  with  four 
bodies  and  with  fishes'  tails, 
men  and  horses  with  dogs' 
heads,  &c.,  &c.  A  woman  ruled 
them  all,  by  name  Omorka, 
which  is  the  same  as  '  the  sea.' 


"And  Belus  appeared,  and 
split  the  woman  in  twain ;  and 
of  the  one  half  of  her  he  made 
the  heaven,  and  of  the  other 
half  the  earth ;  and  the  beasts 
that  were  in  her  he  caused  to 
perish.  And  he  split  the  dark- 
ness, and  divided  the  heaven 
and  the  earth  asunder,  and  put 
the  world  in  order;  and  the 
animals  that  could  not  bear  the 
light  perished. 


And  the  earth  was  without  form 
and  void ;  and  darkness  was  up- 
on the  face  of  the  deep.  And 
the  Spirit  of  God  moved  upon 
the  face  of  the  waters. 


"And  God  said,  Let  there 
be  light;  and  there  was  light. 
And  God  saw  the  light  that  it 
was  good ;  and  God  divided  the 
light  from  the  darkness.  And 
God  called  the  light  Day;  and 
the  darkness  he  called  Night. 
And  the  evening  and  the  morn- 
ing were  the  first  day. 

"  And  God  said.  Let  there  be 
a  firmament  in  the  midst  of  the 
waters;  and  let  it  divide  the 
waters  from  the  waters.  And 
God  made  the  firmament,  and 
divided  the  waters  which  were 
under  the  firmament  from  the 
waters  which  were  above  the 
firmament ;  and  it  was  so.  And 
God  called  the  firmament  Heav- 
en. And  the  evening  and  the 
morning  were  the  second  day. 

"And  God  said,  Let  the  earth 
bring  forth  the  living  creature 
after  his  kind,  cattle  and  creep- 
ing thing  and  beast  of  the  earth 
after  his  kind;  and  it  was  so. 
And  God  made  the  beast  of  the 
earth  after  his  kind,  and  cattle 
after  their  kind,  and  everything 


313-  -^II^S  TO  FAITH.  [EsbayYI. 

that  creepeth  upon  the  earth  af- 
ter his  kind  :  and  God  saw  that 
it  was  good. 
"Belus,  upon  this,  seeing  that        "And  God  said,  Let  us  make 
the  earth  was  desolate,  yet  teem-    man  in  our  image,  after  our  like- 
ing  with  productive  power,  com-    ness ;  and  let  them  have  domin- 
manded  one  of  the  gods  to  cut    ion  over  the  fish  of  the  sea,  and 
off  his  head,  and  to  mix  the    over  the  fowl  of  the  air,  and 
blood,  whicli  flowed  forth,  with    over  the  cattle,  and  over  all  the 
earth,  and  form  men  therewith,     earth,  and  over  every  creeping 
and  beasts  that  could  bear  the    thing   that  creepeth  upon  the 
light.     So  man  was  made,  and    earth.    So  God  created  man  in 
was  intelligent,  being  a  partaker     his  own  image ;  in  the  image  of 
of  the  Divine  wisdom."  God  created  he  him;  male  and 

female  created  he  them. 

"And  the  Lord  God  formed 
man  of  the  dust  of  the  ground, 
and  breathed  into  his  nostrils 
th(?  breath  of  life.  And  man 
became  a  living  soul." 

Y.  The  longevity  of  the  Patriarchs  appears  to 
modern  critics  "  at  variance  with  all  the  laAvs  of  hu- 
man and  animal  organism,"  and  therefore  "  as  contra- 
ry to  common  sense  as  the  notion  of  there  being  any 
real  chronology  in  astronomical  cycles  of  Imndreds 
of  thousands  "of  years."*  Men,  we  are  told,  caimot 
ever  have  lived  more  than  150,  or,  at  the  most,  200  years ; 
and  a  document  which  assigns  them  lives  of  300,  600, 
800,  and  even  900  years,  7nnst  be  unhistorical,  and  is 
either,  in  respect  of  its  numbers,  worthless,  or  to  be 
explained  in  some  not  very  obvious  way.  This  argu- 
ment is  supposed  to  be  drawn  from  physiology,  another 
of  the  "infallible  sciences,"  wdiich  are  held  to  lay 
down  laws,  not  only  for  our  practical  guidance  at  the 
present  day,  but  for  our  intellectual  belief  as  to  the 
occurrences  of  all  past  ages.  In  truth,  however,  the 
science  of  physiology  has  not  spoken  on  the  point 
before  us.  Its  problem  has  been,  not  what  length  of 
time  it  is  possible  for  man  ever  to  have  lived,  but  how 
long  it  is  possible  for  him  now  to  live  under  the  present 

*  Bunsen,  'Egypt,' vol.  iv.  p.  COl ;  compare  Winer,  ' Realworterbuch,' 
vol.  ii.  p.  207;  Bauer,  'Ilebr,  Mytliologie,' vol.  i.  p.  107;  Bredow,  « Uuter- 
sucliungcn,'  vol.  i.  p.  1,  &c.. 


Essay  VI.]  THE  PENTATEUCH.  31q 

circumstances  of  the  earth,  and  in  the  present  known 
condition  of  human  bodies.  And  even  this  question  it 
can  only  answer  empirically.  It  finds  the  body  to  be 
a  machine  wdiich  wears  out  by  use ;  but  it  fails  to 
discover  any  definite  rate  at  which  the  process  of  wear- 
ing out  must  proceed.  In  this  difficulty,  comparative 
pliysiology  does  not  help  it,  for  the  law  of  longevity  in 
the  brute  creation  is  capricious  in  the  extreme.  All 
the  proposed  standards  of  measurement — the  period  of 
gestation,  the  time  occupied  in  growth,  the  size  of  the 
full-grown  body — when  applied  to  species  severally, 
fail  in  certain  instances.  Physiology  then  can  only 
say :  These  human  bodies  are  mortal ;  death  is  inevi- 
table ;  and,  so  far  as  modern  testimony  goes,  men  do 
not  seem  now  able  to  resist  the  tendency  to  decay  be- 
yond the  term  of  150,  or  at  the  utmost  200  years. 
But  the  possible  duration  of  life,  wdien  the  species  was 
but  recently  created,  and  had  its  vigour  unimpaired  by 
the  taint  of  hereditary  disease,  is  beyond  the  cog- 
nizance of  physiological  science,  w^hich,  by  the  mouth 
of  its  most  celebrated  2)rofessors,  declines  to  pronounce 
a  positive  judgment.  The  great  Ilaller,  when  led  to 
speak  on  the  subject,  declared  the  problem  one  wdiich 
could  not  be  solved,  on  account  of  the  absence  of  suffi- 
cient data,^  wdiile  BufFon  accepted  the  Scriptural 
account,  and  thought  he  could  see  physical  reasons 
why  life  sliould  in  the  early  ages  have  been  so  greatly 
extended,  f 

It  cannot,  therefore,  be  said  w^ith  truth  that  the 
longevity  of  the  Patriarchs  is  *'  at  variance  w^ith  all " 
— or  indeed  wdtli  any — "  of  the  laws  of  human  and 
animal  organism."  We  do  not  know  on  wdiat  longevity 
depends  ;  wx  could  not  possibly  tell  d  priori  whether 
man,  or  any  other  animal,  would  live  one,  ten,  twenty, 
fifty,  a  hundred,  or  a  thousand  years.  The  whole 
question  is  one  of  fact,  and  so  of  evidence.  Men  now 
do  not,  except  in  very  rare  instances,  exceed  100  years. 

*  "Problema  ob  paucitatcm  datorum  insolubilc."    ('Element.  PbysJolod.' 
viii.  §  21.)  _ 

t  *  Ilistoirc  Naturclle  dc  I'llomme,'  ffiuvrcs,  vol.  iv.  pp.  £C>§-3C1. 


320  ^^^^  TO  FAITII.  [EssatYI. 

"Was  this  always  so,  or  was  it  once  different?  The 
Bible  answers  this  question  for  us  very  clearly  and 
decidedly,  showing  us  that  human  life  gradually  de- 
clined, beginning  with  a  term  little  short  of  a  millen- 
nium, and  by  degrees  contracting,  till,  in  Moses'  time, 
it  had  reached  (apparently)  its  present  limits  —  the 
days  of  man's  age  having  become  then  "  threescore 
years  and  ten,"  and  only  a  few,  "by  reason  of 
strength,"  reaching  to  fourscore  years.*  Does  other 
historical  testimony  really  run  counter  to  this,  and 
render  it  even  hard  to  believe  ?  or  is  it  not  the  fact 
that  all  the  evidence  we  have  is  in  accordance  with 
the  Scriptural  narrative,  and  strongly  confirmatory  of 
the  statement  that  in  the  early  ages  human  life  was 
prolonged  very  much  beyond  its  present  term  ? 

In  the  Hindoo  accounts  there  are  four  ages  of  the 
world.  In  the  first,  man  was  free  from  diseases,  and 
attained  to  the  age  of  400  years ;  in  the  second 
the  term  of  life  was  reduced  to  300  years  ;  in  the 
third  it  became  200 ;  and  in  the  fourth  100.  The 
Babylonian  traditions  gave  to  their  early  monarchs 
reigns  of  between  two  and  three  thousand  years.  The 
Greeks  told  of  a  time  when  men  wxre  children  till  they 
reached  a  hundred. f  Pliny  mentions  a  number  of 
authors,  according  to  whom  men  had  lived  300,  500, 
600,  and  800  years.  J  Josephus  relates  that  the 
Egyptian,  Phoenician,  Babylonian,  and  Grecian  his- 
torians united  in  declaring  that  there  had  been  cases  of 
persons  living  nearly  1000  years.  §  It  seems  to  be 
quite  certain  that  a  very  wide-spread  tradition  existed 
in  the  ancient  world,  to  the  effect  that  the  term  of 
human  life  had  been  greatly  abbreviated  since  man's 
first  appearance  upon  the  earth. 

YI.  The  duration  of  the  sojourn  in  Egypt,  whether 
taken  as  430  years,  according  to  the  apparent  meaning 
of  Ex.  xii.  40,  41,  or  as  215  years,  according  to  the 
traditional  explanation  of  that  passage,  is  thought  to 
be  unhistorical  because  of  the  impossibility  (as  it  is 

*  Ps.  xc.  10.     The  title  of  this  psalm  rs  "a  prayer  of  Moses,  the  man  of 
Cod."  +  Hesiocf,  'Op.  et  Dies/  130,  131. 

;  *  Hist.  Nat.'  vii.  48.  §  '  Ant.  Jud.'  i.  3. 


EbsayVL]  the  TENTATEUCn.  321 

said)  of  a  family  of  seventy  persons  having,  even  in 
the  longer  of  the  two  periods,  mnlti plied  into  two 
millions  of  souls.  So  strongly  is  this  difficulty  felt, 
that  for  a  theologian  not  to  perceive  its  force,  is  regard- 
ed as  "  one  of  the  most  melancholy  signs  of  the  times," 
reducing  modern  exegesis  to  a  level  with  the  absurd- 
ities of  Eabbinical  comment.*  The  chronology,  it  is 
argued,  must  of  necessity  require  a  very  considerable 
expansion;  and  this  it  is  proposed  to  give  by  sub- 
stituting for  the  430  years  of  Moses  and  St.  Paul,  f 
1400,  or  (more  exactly)  1427  years  (!)  as  the  real 
length  of  the  interval  between  the  going  down  of  Jacob 
into  Egypt  and  the  Exodus  under  Moses.  X  But  it  is 
more  easy  to  make  a  vague  and  general  charge  of  ab- 
surdity against  an  adversary  than  to  point  out  in  what 
the  absurdity  with  which  he  is  taxed  consists.  §  No  one 
asserts  it  to  be  naturally  probable  that  such  a  company 
as  w^ent  down  with  Jacob  into  Egypt  would  in  215,  or 
even  in  430  years,  have  become  a  nation  possessing 
600,000  fighting  men.  Orthodox  commentators  simply 
say  that  such  an  increase  of  numbers  ^vasj^cmJZ^  even 
in  the  shortest  of  these  terms.  They  note  that  Jacob 
brought  into  Egypt  fifty-one  grandsons,  and  that  if, 
under  the  special  blessing  of  God  so  repeatedly 
promised  to  Abraham,  ||  his  male  descendants  had  con- 
tinued to  increase  at  the  same  rate,  they  would  long 
within  the  specified  period  have  reached  the  required 
number.  In  point  of  fact,  they  w^ould  in  the  fifth 
generation  have  exceeded  850,000,  and  in  the  sixth 
have  amounted  to  six  millions.*!"     If  God  can  bless 

*  Bunsen,  '  Egypt,'  vol.  i.  p.  179.  t  Gul.  iii.  17. 

X  Bunsen,  'Egypt,'  vol.  iv.  pp.  492,  493. 

§  Wlien  M.  Bunsen  condescends  to  particularize,  be  falls  himself  into  a 
remarkable  error.  Baumgarten  had  observed  that,  "if  we  deduct  from  the 
70  souls  who  came  into  Egypt  14,  viz.  Jacob,  his  12  sons,  and  Dinah,  there 
remain  56  pair  who  produced  children."  M.  Bunsen  says  this  reminds  him 
of  Falstaflf's  mode  of  reckoning.  But  the  reckoning  is  perfectly  correct,  since 
the  "  56  pair"  who  remain  consist  of  the  aii  male  grandchildren  and  great- 
grandchildren of  Jacob  (who,  together  with  the  14  deducted,  make  up  the  70 
souls),  071(1  their  wives,  who  were  additional  to  the  70.     (See  Gen.  xlvi.  8-27.) 

II  Gen.  xii.  2;  xiii.  IG  ;  xvii.  4-G  ;  xxii.  17. 

1[  The  average  increase  of  the  males  in  the  two  generations  had  been  more 
than,  sevenfold  each  generation.    A  sevenfold  increase  would  have  given 
857,157  males  in  the  fifth  generation,  and  C,OOOjO'jy  in  the  sixth. 
14* 


322  ^^^^  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  VI. 

with  increase,  if  fecundity  and  life  are  His  gifts,  He 
might,  by  making  every  marriage  fruitful  and  every 
child  grow  up,  raise,  even  with  greater  rapidity  than 
the'  record  declares  to  have  been  done,  a  family  into  a 
nation.  At  the  same  time,  as  we  are  bound  not  to 
exaggerate  the  Divine  interference  with  the  ordinary 
course  of  nature  beyond  what  is  actually  stated  or 
implied  in  Scripture,  it  ought  to  be  borne  in  mind  that 
we  have  no  need  to  su23pose  the  600,000  fighting  men 
who  quitted  Egypt,  though  they  are  all  called  Israel- 
ites, to  have  been  all  descendants  of  Jacob.  The  mem- 
bers of  the  Patriarch's  family  came  down  into  Egypt 
with  their  households!^  What  the  size  of  the  patri- 
archal households  was,  we  may  gather  from  that  of 
Abraham,  whose  "  trained  servants  born  in  his  house  " 
amounted  to  318.f  Nor  was  this  an  exceptional  case. 
Esau  met  Jacob  on  his  return  from  Padan-aram  with 
400  men,  who  were  probably  his  servants,  :f:  and  Jacob 
at  the  same  meeting  had  such  a  number  that  he 
could  divide  them  into  two  "bands,"  or  "armies" 
(m'sn^).  §  It  is  not  unlikely  that  the  whole  company 
which  entered  Egypt  with  Jacob  amounted  to  above 
a  thousand  souls.  ||  As  all  were  circumcised,^"  all 
would  doubtless  be  considered  Israelites  ;  and  their 
descendants  would  be  reckoned  to  the  tribes  of  their 
masters.  Again,  we  must  remember  that  polygamy 
prevailed  among  the  Hebrews;  and  that  though  po- 
lygamy, if  a  nation  lives  by  itself,  is  not  favourable 
to  rapid  increase,  yet,  if  foreign  wives  can  be  obtained 
in  any  number,-^="^  it  is  an  institution  by  means  of 
which  population  may  be  greatly  augmented.  A 
recent  Shah  of  Persia  is  said  to  have  left  at  his  death 
nearly  three  thousand  descendants ;  and  it  is  a  well- 
known  fact  that  one  of  his  sons  had  a  body-guard  of 

*  Gen.  xlv.  18 ;  Ex.  i.  1.  +  Gen.  xiv.  M. 

X  Gen.  xxxii.  6.  §  G^n.  xxxii.  7. 

II  Kurtz  thinks  they  must  have  consisted  of  ''several  thousands."  ('  Hist, 
of  Old  Covenant,'  vol.  ii.  p.  149,  E.  T.) 

H  Gen.  xvii.  12. 

**  The  Israelites  could  probably  have  obtained  wives  from  the  lower  castes 
of  the  Egyptians ;  also  from  thcMidianites  (Ex.  ii.  21),  the  Libyans,  and 
others. 


Essay  VI.]  THE  TENTATEUCH.  323 

sixty  grown  men,  who  all  called  liim  fixtlier.'^  Egypt, 
moreover,  was  a  country  where  both  men  and  animals 
are  said  to  have  been  remarkably  iDroliiic ;  f  where, 
therefore,  natural  law  would  have  tended  in  the  same 
direction  as  the  special  action  of  Divine  Providence  at 
this  time.  These  considerations  do  not  indeed  reduce 
the  narrative  wdthin  the  category  of  ordinary  occur- 
rences ;  but  they  diminish  considerably  from  its  ex- 
traordinariness.  They  show  that  at  any  rate  there  is 
no  need  to  extend  the  period  of  the  sojourn  beyond  the 
430  years  of  the  Hebrew  text,  unless  we  seek  to  de- 
prive the  increase  of  that  special  and  exceptional 
character  which  is  markedly  assigned  to  it  by  the 
sacred  historian.  J 

It  is  further  maintained,  that,  even  apart  from  the 
entire  question  of  the  rapid  increase  of  the  Israelites  in 
Egypt,  the  Biblical  number,  430,  cannot  be  historical, 
because  it  is  the  exact  double  of  the  period  immediate- 
ly preceding  it,  that,  namely,  between  Abraham's  en- 
trance into  Canaan  and  Jacob's  journey  into  Egypt. 
It  is  "  repugnant,"  we  are  told,  "  to  any  sound  critical 
view,"  to  believe  the  one  period  to  have  really  been  ex- 
actly the  double  of  the  other.§  The  nature  and  ground 
of  the  repugnancy  are  not  stated ;  but  apparently  the 
principle  assumed  must  be,  that  numerical  coincidences 
are  in  no  case  historical,  and  that  where  they  occur  we 
are  justified  in  assuming  that  one  or  other  of  the  two 
numbers  is  purely  artificial — the  invention  of  a  writer 
not  honest  enough  to  admit  his  ignorance.  But  is  this 
principle  really  sound  ?  Will  there  be  no  numerical 
coincidences  in  historical  chronology?  AVhat,  then, 
shall  we  say  to  the  ready  acceptance  by  the  writer 
who  takes  this  view,  of  a  statement  made  by  Manetho, 

*  Sir  11.  Eawlinson  in  the  writer's  'Ilerodotus,'  vol.  i.  p.  277. 

t  Aristot.  'Hist.  An.' vii.  4;  Strab.  xv.  1,  §  22;  Plin.  '  II.  N.' vii.  3; 
Scnec.  *  Qugest.  Nat.'  iii.  25  ;  Columell.  '  de  Re  Rust.'  iii.  8. 

X  "■  And  the  children  of  Israel  were  fruitful,  and  increased  abundantly, 
and  multiplied,  and  waxed  cxcecdin<:^  mitrhty ;  and  the  land  was  filled'with 
them."  (Ex.  i.  7.)  "  lint  the  more  they  afflicted  them  the  more  they  mulli- 
plied  and  grew ;  and  they  (i.e.  the  Egyptians)  were  grieved  because  of  the 
people  of  Israel."    (lb.  verse  12;  compare  also  verse  20.) 

%  Bunsen,  *  Egypt's  Place/  vol.  i.  p.  173. 


324  ^11^9  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  VL 

that  during  a  certain  period  of  151  years  there  reigned 
in  different  parts  of  Egypt  two  contemporary  dynasties 
consisting  of  exactly  forty-eight  kings  each  ?  Yet  this 
is  exhibited  as  part  of  a  "  clear  historical  picture  "  in 
the  very  same  work  which  proclaims  the  belief  in  a 
less  exact  coincidence  repugnant  to  all  sound  criti- 
cism.* The  truth  is,  that  a  certain  number  of  these 
coincidences  will  be  presented  by  the  historical  chro- 
nology of  any  nation.  For  instance,  from  the  com- 
mencement of  the  Persian  to  the  end  of  the  Pelopon- 
nesian  war — a  very  marked  period  of  Grecian  History 
— was  eighty-six  years  ;  and  from  the  end  of  the  Pelo- 
ponnesian  war  to  the  termination  of  the  struggle  be- 
tween Sparta  and  Thebes — the  next  marked  period — 
was  exactly  half  the  time,  or  forty-three  years.  At 
Bome,  from  the  beginning  of  the  disturbances  caused 
by  the  Gracchi  to  the  first  civil  war  between  Sylla  and 
Marius  was  forty-four  years,  and  from  the  breaking  out 
of  this  war  to  the  death  of  Julius  Caesar  was  likewise 
forty-four  years.  (It  was  also  exactly  forty-four  j^ears 
from  the  death  of  Julius  Csesar  to  the  reputed  year  of 
the  birth  of  Christ.)  In  the  Mohammedan  Caliphate 
the  family  of  Mohammed  occu]Died  the  throne  from  b.c. 
632  to  B.C.  661,  or  (inclusively)  thirty  years ;  and  the 
succeeding  dynasty  of  the  Ommiades  held  it  from  b.c. 
660  to  B.C.  750,  or  just  ninety  years,  thrice  the  time  of 
their  predecessors.  Again,  in  the  portion  of  Jewish 
history  with  respect  to  which  there  is  no  dispute,  the 
length  of  the  period  of  independence  intervening  be- 
tween the  Syrian  and  the  Roman  servitudes  is  exactly 
equal  to  that  of  the  servitude  under  Eome,  which 
began  with  Antipater  and  terminated  with  the  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem  by  Titus.f  But  it  is  needless 
to  multiply  instances.  Common  sense  assures  us  that 
such  accidental  coincidences  must  occasionally  take 
place ;  and  no  chronology  claiming  to  be  historical  is 
to  be  rejected  on  account  of  them,  unless  they  are  of 

*  Bunsen,  *  Egypt,'  vol.  iv.  p.  510. 

+  Judas  MaccabaMis  revolted  B.C.  16G.  Antipater  was  made  Procurator 
of  Judaea  by  Julius  Caesar  in  b.c.  48.  Jerusalem  was  destro3-ed  a.d.  70.  But 
100-48=118,  and  48+70=118. 


EbsatVI.]  the  TENTATEUCn.  305 

more  frequent  occuiTence  in  it  than  can  be  accounted 
for  by  the  doctrine  of  chances.  It  is  not  pretended 
that  they  are  frequent  in  the  Pentateuch  ;  nor  indeed 
in  the  whole  of  the  five  books  of  Moses  is  tliere  any 
other  instance  of  a  recurring  number  that  has  given 
rise  to  any  suspicion. 

18.  It  appears,  then,  from  this  whole  review,  that 
there  is  nothing  in  the  history  of  the  world,  so  far  as  it 
is  yet  known,  that  forms  even  a  serious  objection  to 
the  authenticity  of  the  Pentateuch.  Were  we  bound 
down  to  the  numbers  of  the  Hebrew  text  in  regard  to 
the  period  between  the  Flood  and  Abraham,  we  should, 
indeed,  find  ourselves  in  a  difiiculty.  Three  hundred 
and  seventy  years  would  certainly  not  seem  to  be  sufii- 
cient  time  for  the  peopling  of  the  world,  to  the  extent 
to  which  it  appears  to  have  been  peopled  in  the  days 
of  Abraham,  and  for  the  formation  of  powerful  and 
settled  monarchies  in  Babylonia  and  Egypt.  But  the 
adoption  of  the  Septuagint  numbers  for  this  period, 
which  are  on  every  ground  preferable,  brings  the  chro- 
nology into  harmony  at  once  with  the  condition  of  the 
world  as  shown  to  us  in  the  account  given  in  Scripture 
of  the  times  of  Abraham,  and  with  the  results  obtain- 
able from  the  study,  in  a  sober  spirit,  of  profane  his- 
tory. A  thousand  years  is  ample  time  for  the  occupa- 
tion of  Mesopotamia,  Syria,  and  Egypt,  by  a  considera- 
ble population,  for  the  formation  of  governments,  the 
erection  even  of  such  buildings  as  the  Pyramids,  the 
advance  of  the  arts  generally  to  the  condition  found  to 
exist  in  Egypt  under  the  eighteenth  dynasty,  and  for 
almost  any  amount  of  subdivision  and  variety  in  lan- 
guages. More  time  does  not  seem  to  be  in  any  sense 
needed  by  the  facts  of  history  hitherto  known  to  us. 
The  w^orld,  generally,  is  in  a  primitive  and  simple  con- 
dition at  the  time  of  the  call  of  Abraham.  Men  are 
still  chiefly  nomades.  Population  seems  sparse;  for 
Abraham  and  Lot  find  plenty  of  vacant  land  in  Pales- 
tine, and  the  descendants  of  Abraham  experience  no 
difficulty  in  overspreading  several  countries.  Settled 
kingdoms  appear  nowhere,  except  in  Egypt  and  in 


326  -A-I^S    TO    FAITH.  [Essay  VL 

Babylonia  ;  and  there  the  governments  are  of  the  sim- 
plest form.  Art  in  Babylonia  is  in  a  poor  and  low 
condition,  the  implements  used  being  chiefly  of  stone 
and  flint.  Yet  Babylon  is  much  superior  to  her  neigh- 
bours, holds  Assyria  in  subjection,  and  claims  the 
second  place  in  the  history  of  the  world.  Her  histori- 
cal beginnings  reach  back,  at  the  utmost,  to  b.c.  2458, 
while  those  of  Egypt  are  probably  but  a  very  little 
earlier.  All  other  nations  acknowledge  themselves 
younger  than  these  two,  and  have  no  traditions  even 
of  their  existence  much  before  e.g.  2000.  The  idea 
that  the  Biblical  chronology  is  too  narrow,  that  it 
cramps  history,  and  needs  to  be  set  aside  in  favour  of 
a  scheme  which  puts  10,000  years  between  the  Deluge 
and  the  birth  of  Christ,  is  not  one  which  has  grown 
upon  men  gradually  through  the  general  tenor  of  their 
inquiries  into  the  antiquities  of  diflerent  nations.  It  is 
merely  the  dream  of  a  single  historical  enthusiast,  who, 
devoting  himself  to  the  history  of  one  country,  and  pin- 
ning his  faith  on  qiiq  author — whom  after  all  he  exag* 
gerates  and  misrepresents — has  come  to  imagine  that 
the  additional  time  is  required  by  the  history  of  his 
favourite,  and  has  then  forced  and  strained  the  histo- 
ries of  other  countries,  with  which  he  has  no  special 
acquaintance,  into  a  distant  agreement  with  the  chro- 
nological scheme  formed  upon  the  supposed  necessities 
of  a  single  kingdom  and  people.  As  for  the  further 
requirement  of  another  10,000  years  between  the  Del- 
uge and  the  creation  of  man,  it  rests  upon  linguistic 
phantasies  of  the  most  purely  speculative  character. 
The  remainder  of  the  historical  objections  to  the  au- 
thenticity of  the  Pentateuch,  though  sometimes  ingen- 
ious, have  in  them  nothing  to  alarm  us.  Profane  his- 
tory is  decidedly  favourable  to  a  Deluge  extending  to 
all  races  of  men,  and  to  the  greater  longevity  of  man 
in  the  earlier  ages.  Ethnological  research  tends  con- 
tinually more  and  more  to  confirm,  instead  of  shaking, 
the  account  given  of  the  afiiliation  of  nations  in  the 
tenth  chapter  of  Genesis.  The  more  accurately  old 
myths  are  examined,  the  more  evident  does  it  become 


Essay  VI.]  THE  PENTATEUCH.  QO) 

that  their  tone  and  si:>irit  are  wholly  different  from  the 
tone  and  spirit  of  Scriptnre.  The  Pentateuch  has  the 
air  and  manner  of  history ;  the  Jews  have  always  re- 
garded it  in  that  light ;  and  modern  historical  and 
geographical  inquiries,  whenever  they  afford  an  oppor- 
tunity of  testing  the  accuracy  of  the  narrative,  are 
found  to  bear  witness  to  its  truth.  Whatever  may  be 
the  scientific  difiiculties  in  the  way  of  a  literal  recep- 
tion of  some  portions,  historical  difficulties  of  any  real 
magnitude  there  are  none.  Internally,  the  narrative  is 
consistent  with  itself;  externally,  it  is  supported  by  all 
that  has  any  claim  to  be  considered  sober  earnest  in 
the  histories  of  other  nations.  The  Christian  world, 
which  has  reposed  upon  it  for  nearly  2000  years,  as  an 
authentic  record  of  the  earliest  ages,  is  justified,  by  all 
the  results  of  modern  historical  research,  in  still  con- 
tinuing its  confident  trust.  There  is  really  not  a  pre- 
tence for  saying  that  recent  discoveries  in  the  field  of 
history,  monumental  or  other,  have  made  the  accept- 
ance of  the  Mosaic  narrative  in  its  plain  and  literal 
sense  any  more  difticult  now  than  in  the  days  of  Bos- 
suet  or  Stillingfieet. 


ESSAY    YII 

INSPIRATION. 


CONTENTS  OF  ESSxVY  VII. 


Introduction— All  spiritual  enlight- 
enment derived  from  the  Divine 
Spirit;  but  is  all  derived  in  the 
same  way? 

A  Divine  and  a  human  element  in  all 
Inspiration — How  co-existing? 

History  of  the  question— Jewish  opin- 
ions— Patristic  opinions. 

No  argument  against  a  high  view  to 
be  deduced  from  the  patristic  belief 
in  the  inspiration  of  others  besides 
the  Apostles. 

Middle  ages — Mysticism. 

The  Reformation  favourable  to  a  very 
high  esteem  of  Holy  Scripture,  but 
favourable  also  to  freedom  of 
thought. 

Tendency  of  thought  in  Germany  in 
the  18th  century. 

Deism  passed  from  England,  through 
France,  to  Germany— Doctrine  "of 
the  English  Deists. 

Causes  leading  to  the  controversy  on 
inspiration  in  the  present  day. 

English  writers  of  the  present  centu- 
ry and  their  theories. 

Christian  Evidence  in  a  measure  in- 
dependent of  theories  of  inspiration. 

Definite  theories  not  desirable. 

Objections  to  inspiration  closely  con- 
nected with  objections  to  miracles. 

Origin  of  doubts  about  miracles. 

Miracles  not  improbable,  if  there  be  a 
spiritual  world  connected  more  or 
less  closely  with  the  physical  world, 
and  a  Personal  liuler  of 'the  world. 


IG.  If  miracles  ever  should  occur,  wo 
should  most  naturally  expect  them 
to  be  connected  with  some  special 
communication  of  God's  will  to  man. 

17.  The  common  course  taken  by  philo- 
sophical scepticism. 

IS.  As  to  Inspiration :  we  have  first  cer- 
tain phenomena  in  the  Bible,  prov- 
ing the  existence  of  a  human  ele- 
ment— The  manifestation  of  that 
human  element  most  valuable  in  tho 
matter  of  evidence — We  have  next 
certain  phenomena  manifesting  a 
Divine  element. — (a)  Prophecy — 
Question  as  to  the  existence  of  true 
predictive  prophecy  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament—Objection— Nihil  in  scripto 
quod  non  prius  in  Scriptore — Objec- 
tion replied  to — Cases  of  Balaam 
and  Caiaphas. — (b)  Types. 

19.  How  far  all  this  ])roves  the  special  in- 

spiration of  the  Old  Testament— Cole- 
ridge's view  considered, 

20.  Argument  d  fortiori  for  the  inspira- 

tion of  the  New  Testament— Mr. 
Maurice's  question  replied  to. 

21.  Mr.  Morell's  theory  of  the  intuitional 

consciousness  considered. 

22.  Latitude  of  opinion  on  some  pointa 

may  be  allowable. 

23.  The  Scriptures  an  infallible  deposito- 

ry of  religious  truth. 

24.  Question  concerning  physical  science* 

25.  Conclusion- Some  trials  of  our  faith 

ought  not  to  stagger  us— The  proper 
condition  of  mind  in  the  present 
day. 


INSPIRATION 


1.  As  in  the  natural  world  Tvisdom  and  intelligence 
are  among  the  signs  of  life  in  an  intelligent  being,  so 
in  the  spiritual  world  a  spiritual  understanding  follows 
on  the  possession  of  spiritual  life.  As  the  Divine 
Spirit  gives  life,  so  He  inspires  wisdom.  Indeed  all 
spiritual  gifts  How  equally  from  the  same  Spirit.  St. 
Paul  says  that  ''  there  are  diversities  of  gifts,  but  the 
same  Spirit,"  who  gives  to  one  the  word  of  wisdom, 
to  another  the  word  of  knowledge,  to  another  faith,  to 
another  miracles  and  gifts  of  healing,  to  another  proph- 
ecy, to  another  divers  kinds  of  tongues,  to  another  the 
interpretation  of  tongues.  So  he  describes  the  influ- 
ence of  that  one  and  the  selfsame  Spirit  on  the  early 
disciples  in  the  Church  of  Corinth.  Are  we  to  take 
this  literally?  Are  we  to  believe  that,  whilst  some 
had  spiritual  wisdom  and  understanding — and  that  in 
larger  or  less  degrees — others  were  enabled  to  work 
miracles,  others  to  prophesy  ;  that  whilst  to  some  there 
was  only  the  common  understanding  of  spiritual  truths 
and  mysteries,  such  as  an  enlightened  mind  among  our- 
selves could  penetrate,  to  others  there  was  given  an  in- 
fallible knowledge  of  future  events  or  of  Divine  truths 
otherwise  unknown  to  man?  Or,  on  the  other  hand, 
shall  we  think  no  more  than  this — that  the  Holy 
Spirit,  who  is  the  inspirer  of  all  wisdom,  by  regenerating 
the  heart,  purifying  the  soul,  exalting  the  aflfections, 
and  quickening  the  intuitions  of  the  mind,  gives  to 
some  men  more  than  to  others  an  insight  into  things 
heavenly,  and  so  enables  them  in  all  times  and  in  all 
ages  of  the  Church  to  be  exponents  of  the  Divine  will? 
— that  He  reveals  God  and  Christ  in  their  inmost  con- 


332 


AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  VII 


sciences,  inspiring  tlicm  with  all  liigh  and  lio!y  tliouglits, 
and  that  thus  they  can  utter  things  which  would  be  deep 
mysteries  to  other  men,  and  which  are,  indeed,  the  ora- 
cles of  God  ? 

2.  This  is  pretty  much  the  question  concerning  in- 
spiratiofi  so  much  agitated  now.  When  we  come  to 
consider  it,  there  can  be  no  doubt  but  that  w^e  must 
admit  a  human  and  a  Divine  element.  There  is  the 
mind  of  the  Prophet  or  Apostle  to  be  enlightened,  and 
the  Holy  Spirit,  the  inspirer  or  enlightener.  The 
question  will  be,  in  what  manner  and  in  what  propor- 
tion these  two  elements  coexist.  We  may  suppose  the 
human  mind  perfectly  passive,  acting  simply  under  a 
mechanical  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  speaking  or 
writing  not  its  own  thoughts  or  its  own  w^ords,  but 
only  the  thoughts  and  words  of  the  Spirit  of  God.  Or 
we  may  suppose  the  mind  of  the  writer  or  speaker  act- 
ing altogether  freely,  speaking  entirely  its  own  thoughts 
and  words,  but  having  derived  from  Divine  commimion 
and  enlightenment  a  higher  tone,  having  acquired 
a  correcter  judgment,  and,  from  a  deep  spiritual  in- 
sight, able  to  speak  spiritual  things  such  as  the  natural 
man  receiveth  not.  These  are  the  two  extremes.  The 
one  is  verbal  inspiration,  simple  dictation,  so  that  the 
lips  of  the  Prophet  and  the  pen  of  the  Evangehst  are 
but  mechanical  organs  moved  by  the  Spirit  of  God. 
The  other  is  no  more  than  an  exaltation  of  the  natural 
faculties  by  the  influence  of  the  same  Spirit,  such  an 
exaltation  as  we  must  believe  all  wise  and  holy  men  to 
have  received,  an  inspiration  such  as  that  by  which  a 
Hooker  or  a  Butler  wrot  ethe  works  wdiich  bear  their 
names.  There  are  many  intermediate  steps  between 
these  two,  but  no  one  can  exceed  either  of  these  ex- 
tremes and  yet  call  himself  a  Christian. 

3.  Many  causes  have  brought  this  subject  into 
controversy  at  present.  It  has,  however,  occupied  the 
thoughts  of  thouglitful  nien,  and  has  been  debated 
and  disputed  on  in  earlier  times ;  and  a  rapid  glance  at 
the  history  of  the  question  may  be  a  help  to  giving  it 
its  true  place,  and  perhaps  to  finding  its  true  solution. 


Essay  VII.]  INSriKATION.  333 

The  reverence  wliich  the  ancient  Jcsvs  felt  for  the 
Jewish  Scriptures,  must  have  sprung  from  the  highest 
theory  of  verbal  inspiration.  Their  care  to  count 
every  verse  and  letter  in  every  book  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, to  retain  every  large  or  small  letter,  every 
letter  above  or  below  the  line,  their  belief  that  a  mys- 
tery lurked  in  every  abnormal  state  of  letter,  jot,  or 
tittle,  cannot  have  resulted  from  any  lower  princij^le. 
Later  Jews,  like  the  Cabbalists  or  Maimonides,  may 
have  become  Pantheists  or  Eationalists  ;  but  the  more 
ancient  have  left  us  the  clearest  jn-oof  that  they  esteemed 
the  Scriptures  as  the  express  word  of  God  Himself. 
The  well-known  tradition  amongst  the  Alexandrian 
Jews  concerning  the  verbal  agreement  of  all  the  LXX. 
translators,  though  working  in  seventy  separate  cells, 
looks  the  same  way.  There  is  considerable  reason  to 
believe  that  the  distinction  between  the  different  books 
of  scripture — the  Hagiographa  being  esteemed  inferior 
to  the  Prophets,  and  the  Prophets  inferior  to  the  law — 
was  at  least  much  magnified,  if  not  wholly  invented, 
by  the  later  Jew^s.  So  far,  however,  as  such  a  distinc- 
tion and  such  difference  of  estimation  existed  at  all,  so 
far  we  must  perhaps  believe  that  there  was  a  notion  of 
something  like  degrees  of  inspiration. 

The  earlier  Christian  Fathers  seem  to  have  followed 
much  the  same  course  as  their  Jewish  predecessors. 
Clemens  Pomanus  calls  the  Holy  Scriptures  "  the  true 
words  of  the  Holy  Ghost "  (c.  45).  No  definite  theory 
of  inspiration  would  be  likely  to  be  propounded  ;  but  the 
general  reverence  for  the  words  of  Holy  Writ,  and  the 
deep  significance  believed  to  exist  underneath  the 
letter,  prove  the  belief  in  inspiration  to  have  been  very 
strong  and  universal.  Justin  Martyr,  and  Ins  Jewish 
opponent,  seem  fully  agreed  in  their  appreciation  of  the 
Old  Testament.  "!N"o  Scripture  can  be  opposed  to  any 
other  Scripture"  ('  Dialog.'  p.  289).  Irena3us  saw  in 
our  Lord's  promise  to  his  Apostles — "  He  that  heareth 
you,  heareth  Me"  (Luke  x.  IG) — an  assurance  of  their 
infallibility  in  the  Gospel.  "  After  the  Lord's  resurrec- 
tion they  were  indued  with   the   power   of  the   Holy 


334  ^^^^  '^^  FAITH.  [Essay  VII.- 

Ghost,  and  had  perfect  knowledge  of  tlic  truth.  lie, 
therefore,  who  despises  their  teaching  despises  Christ 
and  God  "  (Iren.  iii.  1).  Still  it  may  be  fairly  said 
that  Irenceus,  in  his  accounts  of  the  composition  of  the 
Gospel,  seems  to  combine  a  human  element  with  the 
Divine.     (See  Iren.  iii.  11.) 

Tertullian  embraced  the  Montanist  belief,  that  Di- 
vine communications  were  made  to  man  by  means  of 
a  condition  of  trance  or  ecstasy.  In  this  trance  the 
prophet  Avas  supposed  to  lose  all  sense,  like  a  Pythoness 
under  the  influence  of  the  Divine  afflatus  (c.  Marcion. 
iv.  22).  This  was  the  highest  kind  of  inspiration. 
Yet  he  seems  to  have  thought  that  the  Apostles  were  at 
times  allowed  to  speak  their  ow^n  words,  and  not  the 
words  of  God,  as  where  St.  Paul  (1  Cor.  vii.  12)  says, 
*'  To  the  rest  speak  I,  not  the  Lord  "  ('  De  Monogam.' 
c.  3). 

The  Alexandrian  Fathers,  Clement  and  Origen, 
though  adopting  somewhat  of  the  JS'eo-Platonic  views  of 
the  soul,  as  receiving  an  enlightenment  by  communion 
with  the  Divine  Logos,  appear  to  have  held  firmly  the 
infallibility  of  every  word  of  Scripture ;  and  the  Mys- 
tical sense  which  they  attach  to  the  history  and  the 
language  of  the  Old  Testament  seems  to  point  even  to 
verbal  inspiration.  (See  Lumper,  '  Historia  Theologico- 
critica,'  vol.  9.  c.  4.  §  iii.  art.  2.)  Origen  was,  however, 
the  first  great  Biblical  critic :  few  things  have  tended 
more  than  Biblical  criticism  to  modify  the  theory  of 
verbal  inspiration :  and  this  appeared  even  in  the 
patristic  ages  and  among  some  of  the  most  illustrious 
of  the  patristic  writers.  The  critical  labours  of  Chry- 
sostom  and  Jerome,  in  the  beginning  of  the  fifth  centu- 
ry, made  them  observe  the  apparent  discrepancies  in 
the  account  of  the  Evangelists,  and  other  like  difficul- 
ties in  Holy  Writ.  Such  observations  led  to  a  greater 
appreciation  of  the  human  element  in  the  composition 
of  Scripture.  St.  Chrysostom  could  see  that  some 
slight  variations  in  the  difierent  narratives  of  tlie  same 
event  were  no  cause  for  anxiety  or  unbelief,  but  ratlier 
a   proof    that   the  Evangelists  w^cre   independent  wit- 


Essay  VII.]  INSPIKATION.  335 

nesses.  And  St.  Jerome  could  discern  in  the  New 
Testament  writers  a  dialect  inferior  to  the  purest  Greek, 
and  even  at  times  a  mixture  of  human  passion  in  the 
language  of  the  Apostles.*  All  this,  however,  these 
Fathers  clearly  held  to  be  subjected  and  subordinate 
to  the  general  Divine  influence  of  the  guiding  and 
overruling  Spirit. 

4.  No  argument  against  a  high  doctrine  of  inspi- 
ration, as  held  by  the  Fathers,  can  be  fairly  deduced 
from  the  fixct  that  they  were  disposed  to  admit  tlio 
inspiration  of  other  writings  besides  the  Canonical 
Scriptures.  Many  of  them  knew  the  Old  Testament 
only  in  the  Greek  translation,  and  were  inclined  to 
pay  the  same  reverence  to  that  which  may  have  been 
due  only  to  the  Hebrew  original.  The  writings  of 
Clement  and  Hennas  were  at  first  received  as  canonical, 
though  more  careful  inquiry  excluded  them  from  the 
Canon  of  the  New  Testament.  This  may  be  an  argu- 
ment against  the  critical  accuracy  of  the  Fathers,  but 
is  none  against  their  belief  in  the  inspiration  of  the 
Bible.  Nor,  again,  are  we  warranted  in  thinking  that 
they  confounded  natural  enlightenment  with  spiritual 
inspiration,  because  some  of  them  speak  as  if  prophetic 
])0wers  and  supernatural  illumination  were  vouchsafed 
to  others  besides  the  Apostles  of  Christ.  There  can 
be  no  cpiestion  that  the  earlier  Fathers  believed  in  the 
continuation  of  the  miraculous  powers  of  the  Apostolic 
age  down  to  their  own  times,  and  hence  they  looked 
themselves  for  a  special  illumination  from  the  Holy 
Ghost.  Yet,  even  so,  they  distinguished  carefully 
between  the  gift  of  infallibility  in  things  spiritual 
vouchsafed  to  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament,  and 
the  gift  of  Divine  illumination  to  themselves  and  their 
own  contemporaries.f 

*  Neander,  'History  of  Doctrines,'  i.  ^^0.    (Bohn.) 

t  Ignatius  claims  for  himself  that  he  knew  the  doctrines  which  lie  taught, 
not  from  man,  but  from  the  testimony  of  the  Spirit  ('ad  Philadolph.'  7);  "but 
then  he  clearly  distinguishes  between  himself  and  the  Apostles.  "  I  do  not 
enjoin  you  as'Peter  and  Paul;  they  were  Apostles,  I  a  condemned  man." 
(*  Ad.  Eph.'  15.)  And  Tertullian,  who  took  a  peculiarly  high  view  of  the 
Divine  illumination  of  the  true  Christian,  says  distinctly  that  "all  the  faithful 
have  the  .Spirit  of  (jod,  but  all  arc  not  Apostles."    "  the  Apostles  have  tha 


336  ^II^S  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  VIL 

5.  The  Church  of  the  middle  ages  had,  for  the  most 
part,  a  belief  similar  to  that  of  the  earlier  Fathers. 
Visions,  and  dreams,  and  sensible  illuminations  were 
still  expected.  Miraculous  powers  and  Divine  inspira- 
tion were  still  believed  to  reside  in  the  Church ;  but 
the  Scriptures  w^ere  not  the  less  esteemed  as  specially, 
and  in  a  sense  distinct  and  peculiar,  the  lively  oracles 
of  God.  Still  the  bold  speculations  of  Abelard,  in  the 
twelfth  century,  reached  the  doctrine  of  inspiration  as 
well  as  other  deep  questions  of  theology.  The  Prophets, 
as  he  taught,  had  sometimes  the  gift  of  prophecy  and 
sometimes  spoke  from  their  own  minds.  The  Apostles 
too  were  liable  to  error,  as  St.  Peter  on  the  question  of 
circumcision,  who  was  reproved  by  St.  Paul."^  Abe- 
lard's  tendency  was  rationalistic.  33ut  here  a  very  im- 
portant phenomenon,  not  confined  to  the  middle  ages, 
but  very  apparent  then,  deserves  our  careful  attention. 
In  all  ages  of  the  Church  we  find  frequent  tendencies 
to  mysticism.  The  desire  for  a  kind  of  ecstatic  vision 
of  things  Divine,  of  abstraction  from  the  external 
world,  and  an  absorbed  contemplation  of  the  Deity,  is 
natural  to  enthusiastic  temperaments,  and  is  not  uncom- 
mon in  times  of  dogmatic  controversy.  The  state  so 
sought  after  seems  to  oifer  a  refuge  from  the  strife  of 
tongues,  from  the  din  and  noise  and  uncharitableness 
of  the  world  and  the  Church  without.  Those  who  have 
taken  this  line,  indulged  in  this  spirit,  have,  of  course, 
a  firm  belief  in  the  communion  of  the  Christian  soul 
with  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  look  for  constant  revelations 
from  the  Divine  to  the  human  intelligence.  The  mys- 
tic is  transported  out  of  self,  and  aims  at  frequent  su- 
pernatural communion  w^ith  God.  To  such  a  person 
the  condition  of  the  devout  soul  is  a  condition  of  con- 
stant inspiration.  It  is  very  true  that  the  Holy  Spirit 
is  ever  present  with  the  Church,  ever  dwells  in  the 
souls  of  Christians,  is  our  teacher  and  guide  in  all 
things,  is  ever  ready  to  enlighten  our  understandings,  as 

Holy  Spirit  in  a  peculiar  sense."     ('De  Exhortatione  Castitatis,' 4.)    See 
Westcott,  '  Introd.  to  the  Gospels,'  pp.  oSG.  400. 

*  'Sic  et  Non.'     Ed.  lleucke,  p.  10.     See  Ncandcr,  'Ilist.  of  Doctrine,' 
vol.  ii.  p.  492. 


Essay  VII.]  INSPIEATION.  33^ 

well  as  to  convert  our  hearts.  But  this  truth  of  Scrip- 
ture, pressed  to  the  extent  of  mysticism,  breaks  down 
the  boundary  between  the  inspiration  of  Prophets  or 
Apostles,  and  the  enlightenment  of  the  Christian  soul. 
The  genuine  mystic  is  himself  in  a  state  of  the  high- 
est inspiration.  The  intuitions  of  his  spii'it  enable  liim 
to  see  things  invisible.  High  doctrine  concerning  the 
Church  is  favourable  enough  to  such  a  view  of  things. 
Belief  in  the  infallibility  of  the  existing  Church,  in  its 
miraculous  powers,  and  in  frequent  revelations  to  the 
higher  Saints,  looked  all  this  way.  Again,  it  is  well  known 
how  mysticism  tended  to  Pantheism.  Striving  after 
absorption  in  God,  men  learned  to  identify  their  own 
minds,  more  or  less,  with  Deity.  The  Divine  Spirit  was 
believed  to  dwell  in  all  human  souls,  and  needed  only  to 
be  stirred  up  within  them.  The  inclination  to  look 
wholly  within,  neglect  of  the  objective,  cultivation  only 
of  the  subjective — all  this  too  readily  takes  a  panthe- 
istic direction.  And  so  we  find  many  sects  of  medieval 
mystics  lapsing  at  length  into  pure  Pantheism — a  state 
of  belief  in  which  it  is  plain  enough  that  anything  like 
the  Christian  doctrine  of  the  inspiration  of  the  Scrip- 
tures is  impossible,  as  it  cannot  be  distinguished  from 
the  illumination  of  any  devout  mind,  or  from  the  inspi- 
rations of  genius.  This  is  a  thing  of  great  importance 
to  observe,  as  it  shows  itself  in  subsequent  ages  of 
Church  History.  Mysticism  and  extreme  spiritualisni 
destroy  any  definite  doctrine  of  the  inspiration  of  Scrip- 
ture, and  they  very  readily  glide  into  Pantheism. 

6.  The  lieformation,  of  course,  introduced  much 
thought  and  controversy  about  Scripture.  "  The  suffi- 
ciency of  the  Scriptures  for  salvation  "  became  a  Pef- 
ormation  watchword  :  Scripture,  the  written  word  of 
God, — not  the  unwritten  record  of  the  Church,  Tradi- 
tion. The  natural  inclination  was  to  a  very  high  es- 
teem of  the  Bible,  as  the  definite  deposit  of  Christian 
truth,  in  contradistinction  to  the  indefiniteness  of  the 
traditions  of  the  Church,  and  of  that  teaching  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  ever  present  with  the  Church,  on  which  the 
Poman  divines  insisted.  Nevertheless,  the  tendency 
15      - 


338  ^^^^  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  VH 

of  the  Reformation  was  to  boldness  of  thought  and  free- 
dom of  inquiry.  Erasmus,  tlie  £i;reat  forerunner  of  Lu- 
ther, had  from  his  critical  investigations  bedn  led  to  a 
somewhat  freer  view  of  inspiration  than  had  been  com- 
mon before  him.  He  thought  it  unnecessary  to  attrib- 
ute everything  in  the  Apostles  to  miraculous  teaching. 
Christ  suffered  the  Apostles  to  err,  and  that  too  after  the 
descent  of  the  Paraclete,  but  not  so  as  to  endapger  the 
faith.*  Even  Luther,  the  great  master  mind  of  the 
age,  with  his  strong  subjective  tendency,  and  with  his 
indomitable  boldness,  ventured  to  subject  the  boohs  of 
the  ITew  Testament  to  the  criterion  of  his  own  intuition. 
The  teaching  of  St.  Paul  penetrated  and  convinced  his 
soul ;  St.  James  seemed  to  contradict  St.  Paul ;  and  his 
Epistle  was  rejected  as  an  Epistle  of  straw.  There  is 
reason  to  believe  that  he  afterwards  regretted  and 
retracted ;  but  words  once  spoken  reach  far  and  wide, 
and  can  never  be  unsaid  again. 

7.  The  tendency  of  Calvin  and  the  Calvinist  reform- 
ers was  less  subjective  and  more  scholastic  than  that 
of  Luther  and  the  Lutherans.  Their  distinct  and  defi- 
nite system  of  doctrine,  like  that  of  their  forerunners 
Augustine  and  Aquinas,  naturally  found  a  place  for 
the  plenary  and  even  verbal  inspiration  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, so  that  some  of  the  Swiss  Confessions  speak  of 
simple  dictation  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  Remonstrants 
or  Arminians,  on  the  other  hand,  were  more  disposed 
to  Rationalism  than  the  generality  of  the  reformed ; 
and  writers,  like  Grotius  and  Episcopius,  made  clear 
distinctions  between  the  Divine  and  the  human  ele- 
ments in  the  writers  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments.f 
The  Socinians  were,  of  course,  the  most  rationalis- 
ing sect  of  those  which  early  sprang  from  the  Reforma- 
tion, a  fungus-growth,  rather  than  one  of  the  natural 
branches.     At  "first,  however,  they  took  the  same  view 

*  Nou  est  ncccsso  wt  quicquid  fuit  in  Apostolis  protimis  ad  miraculnm 
rocemus.  Passus  est  errare  sues  Cbristus,  etiam  post  acccptum  Paraclctum, 
scd  nou  usque  ad  lidci  pcriculum. — Erasm.  £plsti.,  lib.  ii.,  torn.  iv.  Edit. 
Basil. 

i  B.  ff.  A  Spiritn  Sancto  dictari  historias  non  fuit  opus.  Satis  fuit  scrip- 
torem  memoria  valcrc.— Grotius,  Vot.  pro  pace  Ecclcs.y  torn.  iii.  p.  G72.  Loud. 
1G79. 


Essay  VII.]  INSPIEATIOX.  339 

as  other  Protestant  writers  of  the  authority  of  Holy 
Writ,  only  they  were  less  sensitive  about  difficulties 
and  apparent  discrepancies  in  ScrijDture,  and  more  dis- 
posed to  cut  and  square  it  so  as  to  accord  with  what 
appeared  to  them  to  be  reason  and  common  sense. 
This  tendency  more  and  more  fully  developed  itself. 
The  modern  Unitarian  is  a  genuine  Rationalistj  often 
little  dilFcrent  from  a  Deist. 

The  mystical  spirit,  which  had  long  been  sv»x41ing 
up  under  the  weight  of  the  Medieval  Church,  some- 
times wholly  within  it,  sometimes  bursting  forth  from 
the  pressure,  showed  itself  in  many  places  and  many 
forms,  after  the  triumph  of  the  Eeformation.  Its  ele- 
vation of  the  subjective  over  the  objective,  of  the  in- 
ward life  over  the  outward  letter,  led  insensibly  to  a 
disregard  of  the  Bible  in  comparison  with  the  internal 
testimony  and  the  intuition  of  the  soul.  The  Anabap- 
tists of  Germany  were  of  the  coarsest  class  of  mystics. 
Among  the  best  have  been  the  Quakers  in  this  country. 
The  leading  principle  of  George  Fox,  their  founder, 
was  the  doctrine  of  the  Inward  Light.  This  is  the  true 
principle  of  all  knowledge  of  religion.  The  outward 
Word  is  chiefly  valuable  as  it  stirs  up  the  Word  within. 
The  highest  source  of  knowledge  is  this  inward  illu- 
mination. All  outward  forms,  all  outward  tests,  all 
creeds  and  confessions,  are  strictly  forbidden.  Even 
the  Bible  must  be  sul3ordinatcd  to  the  light  of  God 
within.  It  is  evident  that,  on  this  principle,  there  can 
be  no  distinction  between  the  inspiration  of  Proj^hets 
and  Apostles  and  the  inspiration  of  every  devout  soul. 
It  is  also  observable  how  this  theory  produces  results 
like  those  which  spring  from  the  Koman  doctrine  of 
tradition.  The  wi'itten  Word  of  God  is  no  longer  the 
final  court  of  appeal  in  controversies  of  doctrine.  The 
Church  of  Rome  finds  an  infallible  interpreter  in  that 
Divine  Spirit  wdiich  ever  dwells  in  and  guides  the 
Church.  The  mystic  has  an  infallible  interpreter  in 
his  own  bosom,  who  not  only  opens  his  understanding 
that  he  may  understand  the  Scriptures,  but  communi- 
cates directly  and  sensibly  truth  to  the  soul.     It  is  also 


340 


AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  VII. 


very  deserving  of  remark,  however  painful  it  may  be, 
that  at  one  time  the  Quakers  were  rapidly  hmTying 
into  Eationalism,  and  even  Socinianism— the  coldest 
forms  of  nnbelief — from  the  warm  mysticism  of  their 
first  fomiders. 

To  come  nearer  to  our  own  times,  the  whole  spirit 
of  the  last  century  in  Germany  was  subjective.  There 
seemed  a  reaction  from  the  positive  spirit  of  the  seven- 
teenth century,  which  has  been  called  the  middle  age 
of  the  Keformation.  Pietism  was  the  form  taken  by 
the  religious  revival,  a  form  which  was  eminently  sub- 
jective, and  whch  partook  much  of  the  mystical.  The 
philosophical  spirit  was  of  the  same  character.  The 
very  principle  of  illuminism  (anklarung)  was,  that  there 
is  in  man's  inmost  consciousness  an  intuitional  knowl- 
edge of  truth.  Its  motto— "Wahr  ist  w^as  klar  ist," 
"  that  is  true  which  is  clear," — sufficiently  indicates 
its  character.  Proceeding  from  such  a  ground,  and 
raising  Natural  Eeligion  to  the  rank  of  a  Eevelation, 
Tollner,  the  disciple  of  AYolif,  reduced  Scripture  to  the 
level  of  a  natural  light.'-  At  the  same  time,  the  Pie- 
tists used  the  Biblernot  so  much  to  be  the  source  of 
truth  and  the  fountain  of  faith,  as  for  a  book  of  devo- 
tion and  to  raise  pious  emotion s.f  In  both  ways  there 
was  a  move  towards  the  confounding  of  the  light  of 
Nature  with  the  light  of  Eevelation,  of  the  light  of  the 
Spirit  in  the  devout  or  illuminated  soul  with  the  light 
which  had  been  specially  vouchsafed  to  Prophets  and 
Apostles  for  communicating  God's  truth  to  the  world. 

8.  In  the  latter  half  of  "the  eighteenth  century,  the 
Deism,  which  had  been  troubling  England,  had  passed 
through  the  alembic  of  French  scepticism,  and  now^ 
settled  down  in  a  shower  of  Eationalism  on  Germany. 
The  Eationalism  of  Paulus,  the  Pantheism  of  Ilegel, 
the  historical  myth  of  Strauss,  derive  their  pedigree 
from  the  writings  of  Lord  Herbert  of  Cherbury,  Toland, 
Tindall,  and  other  English  Deists  of  the  seventeenth 

*  See  Kalmis,  'Ilist.  of  Cermau  Protcstuutism,'  English  Translation,  by 
Mcvcr,  p.  11(). 

t  lb.,  pp.  100,  IIG. 


ES3AYVII.]  INSmiATION.  g^j 

and  early  cigliteciitli  centuries,  tlirougli  the  school  of 
Rousseau  and  Yoltaire.^'  The  special  princij^le  of  Lord 
Herbert  and  his  followers,  the  Deists,  was  that  there 
were  several  positive  religions — Christianity,  Judaism, 
Mohammedism,  Szc.  In  the  main  all  these  are  the 
same.  The  general  religion  is  at  the  bottom  of  all  of 
them,  i.  e.,  the  Religion  of  Nature,  a  religion  founded 
in  the  natural  perception  of  truth,  the  intuitional  con- 
sciousness of  the  human  mind.  Positive  religions  may 
be  very  good  for  practical  purposes ;  but  all  that  is 
positive  in  them  is  evil,  or  at  the  best  worthless ;  the 
valuable  j^art  being  that  w^hich  they  hold  in  common 
of  the  general  religion.  It  was  this  principle  which 
passed  through  the  various  forms  of  French  infidelity, 
German  Rationalism  and  Pantheism,  and  which  has 
been  brought  back  to  us,  as  the  highest  result  of  mod- 
ern discoveries  in  science  and  mental  philosophy.  How 
it  was  calculated  to  act  upon  the  theory  of  inspiration, 
and  to  unsettle  it  even  wdth  those  who  had  not  become 
either  Rationalists  or  Deists,  it  is  needless  to  remark. 
Where  a  shadow  of  infidelity  is  obscuring  the  light, 
many,  who  are  not  wdiolly  under  its  darkness,  will  yet 
pass  through  the  penumbra  that  surrounds  it.  Even 
the  apologist  in  the  last  century,  from  the  wish  to  take 
positions  which  were  impregnable,  surrendered,  at  least 
for  argument's  sake,  the  higher  ground  of  their  forerun- 
ners in  the  faith.  And,  in  the  like  manner,  among  the 
German  divines,  who  still  held  Christian  and  orthodox 
opinions,  there  was  a  tendency  to  depart  from  the 
higher  doctrine  of  inspiration  held  by  the  Church  and 
the  Reformers ;  to  speak  of  degrees  of  inspiration,  of 
fallibility  in  things  earthly,  of  a  Divine  influence  ele- 
vating the  mental  faculties  of  the  sacred  writers ;  not 
simply  to  ascribe  all  to  the  direct  teachino;  of  the  Spirit 
ofGod.t    ^  .       . 

9.  Distinct  theories  of  in-spiration  were  in  old  times 
seldom  propounded,   even  where  some  attention  was 

*  ScoK.ihnis  as  above,  p.  SI,  &c.     McCaul's  '  llatioualism  aud  Dcistic  lu- 
fidelitv,'  passim. 

t  Sec  Kahnis,  pp.  116,  117. 


342  ^I^S  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  VIL 

directed  to  the  question.  Definite  controversies  upon 
it  scarcely  arose.  The  present  century  has  been  rife 
in  both ;  and  they  have  prevailed  not  a  little  among 
ourselves.  Several  causes  have  contributed  to  call  them 
forth.  First,  and  chiefly,  the  spread  of  rationalising 
speculations,  and  the  consequent  unsettling  of  faith.* 
Next,  the  greater  attention  which  has  been  paid  to  the 
criticism  of  the  Bible,  and  especially  of  the  'New  Testa- 
ment, has  exposed  to  view  some  of  the  difficulties  con- 
cerning the  origin  of  the  books  of  the  Eible,  concerning 
the  historical  accuracy  of  some  statements,  concerning 
the  slight  apparent  variations  in  the  testimony  of  the 
Evangelists.  Li  ordinary  historians  these  would  puzzle 
no  one.  The  strictest  integrity  is  compatible  with 
slight  inaccuracy  or  divergence  of  testimony ;  but  if 
all  was  the  work  of  God's  lioly  Spirit,  speaking  through 
human  agents,  the  least  discrepancy  is  formidable. 
Hence  the  human  element  has  been  thought  more  of 
among  modern  critics,  and  by  some  has  been  elevated 
above  the  Divine.  Thirdly,  the  rapid  discoveries  of 
modern  science  have  been  supposed  to  contradict  the 
records  of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  ;  and,  in  order 
to  account  for  such  a  contradiction,  efforts  have  been 
made  to  interpret  anew  the  words  of  Moses  ;  and,  where 
these  have  proved  unsatisfactory,  many  have  more  or 
less  believed  that  the  writers  of  the  historical  books 
were  merely  chroniclers  of  historical  events  or  collec- 
tors of  ancient  records,  the  providence  of  God  having 
watched  over  the  preservation  of  such  records,  but  the 
Spirit  of  God  having  in  no  sense  dictated  them.  Still 
freer  views  have  been  propounded  ;  but  this  may  suflice 
as  the  expression  of  the  thoughts  of  serious  men. 

10.  One  of  the  first  among  ourselves  to  put  forth  a 
bold  theory  of  inspiration  was  Coleridge.  His  '  Con- 
fessions of  an  Enquiring  Spirit'  was  indeed  not  pub- 

*  It  is  important  to  observe,  that  tliis  was  first  in  time  as  -well  as  in  im- 
portance. Dr.  McCaul  has  shown  clearly  ('Rationalism  and  Dcistic  luiidel- 
ity')  that  the  spread  of  unbelieving  opinions  in  Germany  was  first,  the 
criticism  came  afterwards.  Faith  in  Revelation  Avas  shaken  by  Deism  and 
nationalism,  and  then  the  unfriendly  criticism  was  brought  to  bear  upon  the 
records  of  Christianity. 


Essay  YIL]  INSPIRATION.  3^3 

lislied  till  after  his  death ;  but  the  tone  of  many  former 
writings  is  much  the  same.  In  the  posthumous  work 
just  mentioned  he  unfolds  his  theory  pretty  freely.  Of 
the  Bible  he  speaks  as  a  library  of  infinite  value,  as 
that  which  must  have  a  Divine  Spirit  in  it,  from  its 
appeal  to  all  the  hidden  springs  of  feeling  in  our  hearts. 
*'  In  short,"  he  writes,  "  whatever  finds  me  bears  wit- 
ness that  it  has  proceeded  from  a  Holy  Spirit."  (Let- 
ter i.)  "  In  the  Bible  there  is  more  that  finds  me  than 
I  have  experienced  in  all  other  books  put  together; 
the  words  of  the  Bible  find  me  at  greater  depths  of  my 
being ;  and  whatever  finds  me  brings  with  it  an  irre- 
sistible evidence  of  its  having  proceeded  from  the 
Holy  Spirit."  (Letter  ii.)  But  then  he  protests  against 
"  the  doctrine  which  requires  me  to  believe  that  not 
only  what  finds  me,  but  all  that  exists  in  the  sacred 
volume,  and  which  I  am  bound  to  find  therein,  was  not 
only  inspired  by,  that  is,  composed  by  men  under  the 
actuating  influence  of,  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  likewise 
dictated  by  an  Infallible  Intelligence ;  that  the  writers, 
each  and  all,  were  divinely  informed,  as  well  as  in- 
spired." The  very  essence  of  "this  doctrine  is  this, 
that  one  and  the  same  Intelligence  is  speaking  in  the 
unity  of  a  person,  which  unity  is  no  more  broken  by 
the  diversity  of  the  pipes  through  which  it  makes  it- 
self audible,  than  is  a  tune  by  the  diflferent  instruments 
on  which  it  is  played  by  a  consummate  musician  equally 
perfect  in  all.  One  instrument  may  be  more  capacious 
than  another,  but  as  far  as  its  compass  extends,  and  in 
what  it  sounds  forth,  it  will  be  true  to  tjie  conception 
of  the  master."  Such  a  doctrine,  he  conceives,  must 
imply  infallibility  in  physical  science  and  in  every- 
tliing  else  as  much  as  in  faith,  in  things  natural  no 
less  than  in  spiritual.  He  expresses  a  full  belief 
"  that  the  word  of  the  Lord  came  to  Samuel,  to  Isai- 
ah, to  others,  and  that  the  words  which  gave  utter- 
ance to  the  same  are  faithfully  recorded."  But  for  the 
recording  he  does  not  think  that  there  was  need  of  any 
supernatural  working,  except  in  such  cases  as  those  in 
which  God  not  only  utters  certain  express  words  to  a 


344  ^11^3  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  VIL 

propliet,  but  also  enjoins  liim  to  record  tliem.  In  the 
latter  case  he  accepts  them  "  as  supernatiirally  com- 
municated and  their  recording  as  executed  under  special 
guidance."  Tlie  arguments  of  Coleridge  are  calculated 
rather  to  pull  down  than  to  build  up.  He  brings  many- 
reasons  against  a  rigid  mechanical  theory,  against  a 
belief  that  the  Bible  is  simply  the  voice  of  God's 
Holy  Spirit  uttered  through  different  organs  or  instru- 
ments ;  but  he  does  not  fix  any  limit,  he  does  not  say 
how  far  he  admits  Divine  teaching  or  inspiration  to  ex- 
tend, nor  does  he  apparently  draw  any  line  of  distinc- 
tion between  the  inspiration  of  holy  men  of  old  and 
the  spiritual  and  providential  direction  of  enlightened 
men  in  every  age  and  nation. 

Wherever  Coleridge  has  trodden  Mr.  Maurice  fol- 
lows him ;  not  that  he  is  a  servile  imitator,  but  he  is  a 
zealous  disciple,  and  one  wdio  generally  outdoes  his 
master.  In  his  '  Theological  Essays '  he  begins  to  speak 
of  the  inspiration  of  poets  and  prophets  among  the 
Greeks ;  he  speaks  again  of  the  quickening  and  inform- 
ing spirit,  to  which  all  good  men  ascribe  their  own 
teaching  and  enlightenment;  he  quotes  the  language 
of  our  Liturgy  as  ascribing  to  "God's  holy  inspiration" 
the  power  of  "  thinking  those  things  that  be  good  ;"  and 
then  he  asks  the  question,  "  Ought  we  in  our  sermons 
to  say,  '  Brethren,  wx  beseech  you  not  to  suppose  the 
inspiration  of  Scripture  to  at  all  resemble  that  for  which 
we  have  been  praying ;  they  are  generically  and  essen- 
tially unlike  ;  it  is  blasphemous  to  connect  them  in  our 
minds  ;  the  Church  is  very  guilty  for  having  suggested 
the  association  ? '  "  Proceeding  in  this  course  he  nat- 
urally arrives  at  the  conclusion  that  all  which  is  good 
and  beautiful  comes  from  the  inspiration  of  the  Spirit 
of  God,  and  that  the  sacred  words  of  Scripture  came 
in  the  same  manner  from  the  same  Spirit.  (See  Essay 
xiii.)  In  some  of  his  writings,  especially  in  his  work 
on  'Sacrifices,'  he  appears  to  have  carried  his  disbelief 
of  a  more  sjjccial  inspiration  of  Holy  Scripture  to  a 
greater  length  than  in  his  'Theological  Essays,'  as 
where  God's  tempting  of  Abraham  to  slay  his  son  is 


ES6AY  VII.]  INSPIRATION.  3^5 

attributed  to  a  horrible  thonglit  coming  over  bim  and 
haunting  him. 

A  very  able  and  interesting  writer  on  the  same  side 
of  the  same  subject  is  Mr.  Morell  in  his  'Philosophy 
of  Religion.'  The  work  is  one  of  considerable  acute- 
ness  and  philosophical  power.  The  writer's  theory  of 
inspiration  is  based  on  his  theory  of  the  human  mind. 
The  different  powers  of  consciousness  he  classes  thus : 

Powers  of  Consciousness  . .  to  which  correspond  . .  Emotions. 

1.  The  Sensational  "  "  The  Instincts. 

2.  Tlio  Perceptive  "  "  The  Animal  Passions. 

3.  The  Loijical  "  "     •  Relational  Emotions. 

4.  The  Intuitional  "  "  Esthetic,   Moral,   and 

Kcligious  Emotions. 

'Now,  the  intuitional  consciousness,  he  contends,  is 
that  which  alone  is  properly  susceptible  of  religious 
impressions  and  religious  truths.  lievelation  he  con- 
siders to  involve  an  immediate  intuition  of  Divine  real- 
ities. All  revelation  implies  an  intelligible  object  pre- 
sented, and  a  given  jDower  of  recipiency  in  the  subject, 
which  power  is  lodged  in  the  intuitional  consciousness. 
In  distiuguishing  revelation  and  inspiration,  he  defines 
"  revelation,  in  the  Christian  sense,  as  that  act  of  the 
Divine  power  by  which  God  presents  the  realities  of 
the  spiritual  world  immediately  to  the  human  mind, 
while  inspiration  denotes  that  especial  influence  wrought 
npon  the  faculties  of  the  subject,  by  virtue  of  which'he 
is  able  to  grasp  these  realities  in  their  perfect  fulness 
and  integrity"  (p.  150).  "God  made  a  revelation  of 
Himself  to  the  world  in  Jesus  Christ ;  but  it  was  the 
inspiration  of  the  Apostles,  which  enabled  them  clearly 
to  discern  it." 

Mr.  Morell  argues  that  "  the  canonicity  of  the  Xew 
Testament  Scriptures  was  decided  npon  solely  on  the 
ground  of  their  presenting  to  the  whole  Church  clear 
statements  of  AjyostoUcal  CJiristianity.  The  idea  of 
tlieir  being  written  by  any  special  command  of  God, 
or  verbal  dictation  of  the  Spirit,  was  an  idea  altogether 
foreign  to  the  primitive  Christians"  (p.  165).  "The 
proper  idea  of  inspiration,  as  applied  to  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures, docs  not  include  either  miraculous  powers,  verbal 
15* 


S4G  -^II^S  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  VIL 

dictation,  or  any  distinct  commission  from  God."  {10.) 
On  the  contrary,  it  consists  "  in  the  impartation  of  clear 
intuitions  of  moral  and  spiritual  truth  to  the  mind  by 
extraordinary  means.  According  to  this  view  of  the 
case,  inspiration,  as  an  internal  phenomenon,,  is  per- 
fectly consistent  with  the  natural  laws  of  the  human 
mind — it  is  a  higher  kind  of  potency,  which  every  man 
to  a  certain  degree  possesses"  (p.  166).  This  view,  he 
thinks,  "gives  full  consistency  to  i\\Q jprogressive  char- 
acter of  Scripture  morality"  (p.  167).  "It  gives  a  sat- 
isfactory explanation  of  the  minor  discrepancies  to  be 
found  in  the  sacred  writers"  (p.  170),  whether  those 
discrepancies  be  between  Scripture  and  science,  or  in 
statements  of  facts,  or  in  reasoning.  In  every  case  in 
which  the  moral  nature  is  highly  purified,  and  so  a 
harmony  of  the  spiritual  being  with  the  mind  of  God 
produced,  a  removal  of  all  outward  disturbances  from 
the  heart,  "  What,"  he  asks,  "  is  to  prevent  or  disturb 
the  immediate  intuition  of  Divine  things?  ^Blessed 
are  the  pure  in  heart,  for  thej^  shall  see  God' "  (p.  186). 

It  is  clear  that  this  theory  makes  great  purity  of 
heart,  or  high  sanctification,  equivalent  to,  or  the  un- 
failing instrument  of,  inspiration.  If  one  man  is  a 
better  Christian  than  another,  and  so  has  a  purer  heart, 
he  must  be  more  inspired  than  the  other.  Hence,  if  a 
man  of  modern  times  could  be  found  of  a  higher  re- 
ligious tone  and  character  than  an  Apostle,  he  would 
have  a  higher  intuition  of  Divine  things,  and  therefore 
would  know  Christian  truth  more  infallibly.  Moreover, 
it  appears  that  the  value  of  the  Scriptures  consists,  not 
in  their  proceeding  from  any  direct  command  of  God, 
or  from  any  infallible  guidance  of  His  Spirit,  but  in 
their  embodying  the  teaching  and  experience  of  men 
whose  hearts  were  elevated,  and  so  their  understand- 
ings enlightened ;  to  this  it  being  added,  in  the  case  of 
the  New  Testament,  that  the  writers  were  such  as  were 
specially  cjualified  to  represent  the  Apostolical  Church, 
and  so  to  transmit  its  spirit  and  teaching  to  us. 

A  writer  oft  less  ability,  but  more  boldness,  Mr. 
Mac  Naught  of  Liverpool,  has  carried  the  same  theory 


Essay  VII.]  IKSPIKATION.  g^^ 

to  its  furthest  limits.  He  defines  inspiration  to  be 
"  that  action  of  the  Divine  Spirit  by  which,  apart  from 
any  idea  of  infallibility,  all  that  is  good  in  man,  beast, 
or  matter,  is  originated  and  sustained"  (p.  136,  Second 
Edition).  He  denies  all  distinction  between  genius  and 
inspiration.  He  doubts  not  that  "David,  Solomon,  Isa- 
iah, or  Paul  would  have  S])oken  of  everything,  which 
may  with  propriety  be  called  a  work  of  genius,  or  of 
cleverness,  or  of  holiness,"  as  "  works  of  the  Spirit  of 
God,  written  by  Divine  inspiration"  (p.  132). 

11.  The  historical  sketch  thus  rapidly  given  seems 
to  show  that  there  have  always  been  some  slight  diifer- 
ences  of  tone  and  opinion  touching  this  important  ques- 
tion, but  that  these  differences  have  never  so  markedly 
cojne  out  as  in  the  nineteenth  century.  The  subject  at 
present  causes  great  anxiety,  and  not  without  reason. 
Many  feel  that,  if  they  must  give  up  a  high  doctrine  of 
inspiration,  they  give  up  Christianity  ;  and  yet  they 
think  that  a  high  doctrine  is  scarcely  tenable.  Such  a 
feeling  is  not  unnatural,  and  yet  it  is  not  wholly  true. 
All  the  history,  and  even  all  the  great  doctrines  of  the 
Gospel,  might  be  capable  of  proof,  and  so  deserving  of 
credence,  though  we  were  obliged  to  adopt  almost  the 
lowest  of  the  modern  theories  of  inspiration.  For  in- 
stance, all,  or  almost  all,  the  arguments  of  Butler, 
Palcy,  Lardner,  and  other  like  authors,  are  inde])cnd- 
cnt  of  the  question,  "  What  is  the  nature  and  degree  of 
Sj)i ritual  inspiration  ? "  Paley,  for  instance,  undertakes 
to  prove  the  truth  of  Christ^s  resurrection  and  of  the 
Gospel  history,  and  thence  the  truth  of  the  doctrines 
which  Christ  taught  to  the  world.  But  this  he  argues 
out,  for  the  most  part,  on  principles  of  common  histori- 
cal evidence.  He  treats  the  Apostles  as  twelve  com- 
mon men,  of  common  honesty  and  common  intelligence. 
If  they  could  not  have  been  deceived,  and  had  no  mo- 
tive to  deceive  the  world,  then  surely  we  must  accept 
their  testimony  as  true.  But  if  their  testimony  is  true, 
Jesus  Christ  must  have  lived,  and  taught,  and  worked 
miracles,  and  risen  from  the  dead,  and  so  in  Him  we 
have  an  accredited  witness  sent  from  God.     His  teach- 


348  ^^^^  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  yiL 

ing,  therefore,  must  have  been  the  truth ;  and  if  wc 
have  good  grounds  for  believing  that  His  discij^les 
carefully  treasured  up  His  teachiug,  and  faithfully 
handed  it  on  to  us,  we  have  then  in  the  Xew  Testa- 
ment an  unquestionable  record  of  the  will  and  of  the 
truth  of  God.  Even  if  the  Apostles  and  Evangelists 
had  no  special  inspiration,  yet,  if  we  admit  their  care 
and  fidelity,  we  may  trust  to  their  testimony,  and  so 
accept  their  teaching  as  true. 

So,  then,  even  if  we  were  driven  to  take  the  lowest 
view  of  inspiration,  we  are  not  bound  to  give  up  our  faith. 
External  evidence  must  almost  of  necessity  begin  by 
taking  low  ground.  It  must  treat  nothing  as  certain 
until  it  is  proved.  It  must  not,  therefore,  even  -pre- 
sume  that  witnesses  are  honest  till  it  has  found  reason 
to  think  them  so  ;  and,  of  course,  it  cannot  treat  them 
as  inspired  till  it  meets  with  something  which  compels 
an  acknowledgment  of  their  inspiration.  This  is 
taking  the  extremest  case,  one  in  which  we  altogether 
doubt  the  inspiration  of  the  Apostles.  A  fortio7'i^  we 
need  not  throw  away  all  faith,  if  we  should  be  led  to 
think  that  some  books  of  the  Old  Testament  are  only 
historical  records,  collected  by  Jewish  antiquarians, 
and  bound  up  with  the  writings  of  prophets,  as  venera- 
ble and  valuable  memorials  of  the  peculiar  people  of 
God.  All  this  might  be,  and  yet  God  may  have  spoken 
by  holy  men  of  old,  and  afterwards  more  fully  by  His 
Son. 

Some  Christian  controversialists,  who  take  high 
ground  themselves,  write  as  if  they  thought  that  Chris- 
tianity was  not  worth  defending,  unless  it  was  defended 
exactly  on  their  principles.  The  minds  of  the  young 
more  especially  are  sometimes  greatly  endangered  by 
this  means.  The  defender  of  the  Gospel  may  be  but  an 
indifferent  reasoner.  He  fails  to  make  his  ground  sure 
and  strong.  His  reader  Unds  more  forcible,  at  least 
more  specious,  arguments  elsewhere.  He  thinks  the 
advocate  he  rested  on  defeated,  his  arguments  answered 
and  upset,  and  Christianity  itself  seems  lost.  ISTow,  we 
may  surely  begin  by  saying,  that  the  question  of  inspi- 


Essay  VII.J  INSPIEATION.  349 

ration  is,  within  certain  limits,  a  question  internal  to 
Christianity.  No  doubt,  it  may  materially  afiect  the 
evidences  of  Christianity  ;  but  the  questions  of  verbal 
inspiration,  mechanical  inspiration,  dynamical  inspira- 
tion, and  the  like,  arc  all  questions  on  which  persons 
believing  in  the  Gospel  may  differ.  There  is  a  degree 
of  latitude  which  must  be  fatal  to  faith  ;  but  within 
certain  limits  men  may  differ,  and  yet  believe.  We 
shall  be  wise  to  tal^e  safe  ground  ourselves,  and  to  bear 
as  charitably  as  we  can  with  those  who  may  take 
either  higher  or  lower.  Only  it  cannot  be  concealed 
that  the  temper  of  mind  which  disposes  to  a  very  lovv' 
doctrine  of  inspiration  is  one  that  may  not  improbably 
lead  in  the  end  to  the  rejection  of  many  religious  truths 
— to  scepticism,  if  not  to  unbelief. 

12.  It  seems  pretty  generally  agreed  among  thought- 
ful men  at  present,  that  definite  theories  of  inspiration 
are  doubtful  and  dangerous.  The  existence  of  a  human 
element,  and  the  existence  of  a  Divine  element,  are 
generally  acknowledged  ;  but  the  exact  relation  of  the 
one  to  the  other  it  may  be  difficult  to  define.  Yet  some 
thoughts  may  aid  us  to  an  approximation  to  the  truth, 
perhaps  sufficiently  clear  for  practical  purposes. 

13.  In  the  first  place,  then,  let  us  consider  for  a 
moment  what  is  the  real  principle  which  seems  to 
actuate  those  writers  and  thinkers,  of  the  present  day 
especially,  who  endeavour  to  root  out  all  distinction 
between  the  inspiration  of  the  Apostles  and  Prophets, 
and  the  ordinary  illumination  of  good  and  wise  men. 
Is  it  not  that  morbid  shrinking  from  a  belief  in  any- 
thing miraculous  in  religious  history,  now  so  commonly 
prevalent  ?  that  fear  to  admit  the  possibility  that  the 
Creator  of  the  universe  should  ever  specially  interfere 
with  the  universe  which  lie  has  created  ?  There  can 
be  no  question  but  that  that  inspiration  of  Holy  Scrip- 
ture in  which  the  Cliurch  has  generally  believed  is  of 
the  nature  of  a  miracle;  and  so  its  rejection  follows 
upon  the  rejection  of  miracles  in  general.  Many  mar- 
vellous things  exist  in  nature,  things  at  least  as  marvel- 
lous as  any  miracles  recorded  in  Scripture.     It  is  mar- 


350  ^II>S  TO  FAITH.  [E33AT  VIL 

vellous  that  the  worlds  should  have  come  into  being, 
and  should  all  be  under  the  gov^ernment  of  the  strictest 
laws  and  the  most  undeviating  rules — that  life  should 
exist  at  all — that  new  life  should  be  consta-ntly  burst- 
ing forth — that  eyes  sliould  open  curiously  formed  to 
see,  and  ears  curiously  constructed  to  hear ; — all  thi^, 
and  much  beside,  is  as  marvellous  as  the  suspension  of 
a  natural  law,  as  the  restoring  life  to  the  body  from 
which  it  had  gone  forth,  as  the  giving  sight  to  the  blind, 
or  hearing  to  the  deaf.  But  the  latter  startles  us  into 
conviction  that  some  living  personal  being  of  creative 
power  has  newly  put  forth  his  strength ;  the  former 
state  of  things  is  so  general,  uniform,  and  constantly 
recurring,  that  we  can  go  on  as  usual  w^ithout  much 
thinking  of  it,  call  it  Nature,  or  perhaps  Deity,  or  any 
other  abstract  generality,  and  so  rest  satisfied. 

1-i.  Without  doubt  we  witness  in  the  universe  the 
constant  prevalence  of  general  laws,  and  the  regulation 
of  all  things  by  them.  In  proportion  to  this  general 
constancy  is  our  natural  expectation  that  it  will  con- 
tinue. And,  moreover,  even  though  we  may  be  led  to 
believe  that  the  whole  must  have  been  framed,  and  that 
the  laws  must  have  been  given  by  a  creative  intelli- 
gence ;  still  the  uniform  operation  of  those  laws  disposes 
us  to  doubt  the  probability  that  they  will  ever  be  in- 
terfered with  by  the  hand  that  first  ordered  them.  This 
doubt  is  strengthened  by  the  belief  that  the  w^isdom, 
which  first  gave  being  to  an  universe,  could  never  have 
wrought  so  imperfectly  as  that  its  active  interference 
should  afterwards  be  needed,  to  remedy  defects  or  to 
repair  the  machinery.  And  all  this  might  perhaps  be 
probable  enough,  if  we  could  see  but  a  natural  creation, 
and  if  there  were  no  moral  and  rational  creation  too. 
But  suppose  it  to  be  true,  that  there  is  in  the  physical 
universe,  and  more  or  less  connected  with  matter  and 
the  laws  of  matter,  a  multitude  of  intelligent,  rational, 
moral,  and  accountable  beings;  some  more  powerful 
than  others  ;  some,  the  angels,  wholly  good  ;  some,  the 
evil  angels,  wholly  bad ;  some  of  a  mixed  character, 
like  man  ;  all  capable,  more  or  less,  of  communication 


Essay  VIL]  INSPIRATION.  3g  j 

with  each  other  —  those  indeed  of  mixed  character 
closely  connected  with  matter,  joined  to  material  bodies, 
whilst  the  more  powerful  intelligences,  good  and  evil, 
are  freer  and  more  independent  of  mere  physical  influ- 
ences :  suppose,  too,  that  there  is  one  great  Intellect, 
one  Sovereign  Mind,  who  made  all,  and  who  governs 
all ;  with  premises  like  these,  where  is  the  improbabil- 
ity that  there  should  be  occasional  interferences  with 
natural  laws  ?  Life  does  not  exist  at  all  without  pro- 
ducing some  interference  with  the  mere  laws  of  matter 
and  motion.  A\^here  intelligent  beings  exist  capable 
of  acting  on  material  substances,  they  ever  do  mould 
those  material  substances  to  their  will,  and  make  the 
laws  of  nature  serve  them.  If  created  intelligences 
superior  to  man  have  any  power  to  act  through  material 
instruments,  we  should  expect  that  they  could  only  act, 
as  man  does,  by  taking  advantage  of  the  laws  by  which 
matter  is  guided,  and  so  controlling  one  law  by  bring- 
ing a  more  powerful  law  to  bear  upon  it.  Even  of  the 
providence  of  the  Supreme  Being,  if  that  providence 
be  continually  at  work,  controlling  the  moral  and  in- 
tellectual, and  upholding  the  material  creation,  it  is 
most  probable  that  such  providential  agency  would  be 
exercised  in  overruling  and  directing  natural  causes 
and  laws  rather  than  in  displacing  or  superseding  them. 
But  there  certainly  seems  no  d  2^^'^ori  improlDability 
that  the  Creator  should  be  also  the  Euler  of  the  uni- 
verse ;  that  where  the  creation  is  moral  and  intelligent, 
lie  should  rule  and  interfere  as  He  might  not  where 
it  was  simply  material  or  animal ;  that,  where  moral, 
personal  beings  were  acting  upon  one  another,  striving 
to  beneiit,  and  striving  to  ruin  one  anotlier,  lie  too  at 
times  should  be  at  hand,  to  punish  or  to  protect.  And 
so  the  doctrine  of  a  special  providence  seems  only  con- 
sistent with  the  belief  in  a  personal  God.  But  the  step 
from  thence  to  a  belief  in  miracles  is  no  great  stride. 
For,  if  the  great  personal  Creator  rules  and  guides  and 
interferes  in  the  affairs  of  Ilis  creation,  though  he  would 
be  likeliest  to  do  so  connnonly  by  mere  guidance  of 
natural  laws,  yet,  if  there  were  need  or  occasion  for  it. 


352  ^II^S  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  VII. 

it  must  be  quite  as  easy  for  Ilim  to  interfere  by  tlie  en- 
tire suspension  of  those  laws,  or  by  a  temporary  altera- 
tion of  tliem."^ 

15.  Indeed  it  is  hard  to  see  how  miracles  should 
appear  either  impossible  or  improbable;  but  either  on 
the  theory  that  what  we  see  commonly  Ave  must  see 
always,  or  else  on  the  theory  that  there  is  no  personal 
providence  of  God.  And,  in  short,  is  it  not  true,  that 
the  natural  tendency  of  those  who  try  to  get  rid  of 
miracle  and  special  inspiration  is  to  the  resolving  of 
providence  into  law,  and  of  God  into  simple  intelli- 
gence ?  We  are  all  well  aware  that  w^e  see  the  govern- 
ment of  law,  not  only  in  the  physical,  but  even  in  the 
intellectual  world ;  and  there  are  those,  who,  from 
observing  this,  have  been  led  to  a  belief  in  law,  and 
nothing  but  law.  God  with  them  is  but  law ;  and 
providential  or  moral  government  gives  place  to  mere 
necessity.  Of  course,  this  is  simple  Atheisn:i,  and  in- 
volves all  the  difficulties,  as  well  as  all  the  miseries,  of 
Atheism.  And  yet,  surely  it  is  more  consistent  and 
logical  than  the  system,  which  does  not  deny  the  wis- 
dom that  seems  to  have  planned  and  still  seems  to 
order  all  things,  but  which  yet  shrinks  from  acknowl- 
edging the  distinct,  individual  personality  of  the  Crea- 
tor, His  personal  presence  to  all  the  universe  which  He 
has  created,  His  superintending  providence  over  it,  and 
His  active  interference  in  it.  Unquestionably  this  latter 
is  the  doctrine  of  the  Hebrew  Bible,  and  that  which 
Jesus  Christ  taught  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  But 
philosophic  religion  talks  to  us  of  a  general  principle  of 
intelligence  diffused  throughout  all  things,  moving,  and 
breatliing  in,  and  animating  all  beings.  Now  this 
general  principle  of  intelligence  sounds  philosopliical 
enough  ;  but  how  can  it  be" reconciled  with  what  Eng- 

*  Of  course,  if  Professor  Baden  Powell's  theory  be  true,  that  the  physical 
and  the  spiritual  worlds  arc  so  separate  that  they  can  never  come  into  con- 
tact, then  all  this  is  impossible.  IJiit  then  all  creation  is  impossible.  The 
spiritual  could  never  have  created  the  material.  Indeed,  the  union  of 
soul  and  body  must  be  impossible ;  at  all  events,  all  religious  knowledge  must 
be  impossible.  It  can  be  founded  on  no  evidence,  and  can  result  only  from 
certain  convictions  of  the  mind,  wholly  incapable  of  being  tested  as  to  their 
truth. 


Essay  VII.]  INSPIRATION.  353 

lislimen  call  common  sense  ?  What,  on  principles  of 
common  reason,  can  be  meant  by  intelligence  where 
there  is  no  intellect,  or  a  great  principle  of  mind  where 
there  is  no  personal  mind  at  all  ^  We  know  what  is 
meant  by  the  intelligence  of  a  mali,  or  the  intelligence 
of  a  beast — intelligence  being  the  power  of  perceiving, 
understanding,  and  reasoning  predicable  of  the  mind 
of  that  man  or  that  beast.  In  like  manner  w^e  can 
understand,  that  if  there  be  one  great  infinite  mind, 
then  infinite  intelligence  may  be  predicable  of  that  in- 
finite mind.  13ut  to  say  that  there  is  any  general  prin- 
ciple of  intelligence  separable  and  distinguishable  from 
any  particular  mind,  is  surely  to  palter  with  us  in  a 
double  sense.  We  can  no  more  appreciate  intelligence 
as  separated  from  the  intellect  of  which  it  is  a  quality 
or  attribute,  than  we  can  understand  agency  without 
an  agent,  potency  without  a  power,  sight  without  a 
seer,  thought  without  a  thinker,  or  life  without  that 
which  lives.  In  short,  may  we  not  demur  altogether 
to  mere  abstractions,  except  as  they  may  exist  in  the 
mind,  or  in  systems  of  philosophy  ?  And  so,  is  not  the 
conclusion  inevitable,  that  our  real  alternative  lies  be- 
tween a  mere  Stoical  law,  a  Buddhist  Kharma,  blind 
and  inexorable,  working  in  matter,  it  is  useless  to  in- 
quire whence  or  how — between  this  and  a  belief  in  a 
God,  personal,  present.  Maker,  Ruler,  Guider  of  all 
things,  and  of  all  men? 

16.  Give  us  this,  as  the  Bible  gives  Him  to  us:  and 
though  we  should  never  expect  Him  to  be  perpetually 
setting  aside  the  laws  which  He  has  made  for  the  uni- 
verse, yet  we  need  not — rather  we  cannot — believe, 
that  He  should  be  so  inevitably  fettered  by  them,  as 
that  Ho  should  not  continually  guide  them  for  the  good 
of  His  intelligent  and  moral  creatures — guide  tliem  as 
in  a  less  degree  those  creatures  themselves  can  guide 
them,  or  that,  when  He  may  see  fit,  He  should  not 
suspend,  or  even  for  a  season  alter  them.  And  if  this 
latter  contingency  should  ever  take  place,  we  should 
naturally  expect  that  it  Avould  be  never  so  probable  as 
when  it  was  His  pleasure  to  communicate  to  rational 


354  -^I^S  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  YIL 

beings  some  special  revelation  of  His  will,  and  to  teach 
them  concerning  Himself  what  they  might  not  be  able 
to  learn  from  mere  natural  phenomena. 

Can  there  be  any  inconsistency  in  such  a  putting 
aside  of  the  veil  of  nftture,  and  giving  man  a  somewhat 
clearer  vision  of  God?  Doubtless,  other  courses  are 
possible.  God  might  be  pleased,  instead  of  making 
any  objective  communications  to  mankind,  to  breathe 
silently  into  each  individual  spirit,  and  to  teach  sepa- 
rately each  one  of  His  will  and  of  Himself.  But  no 
one  has  a  right  to  say  that  such  must  be  God's  plan  of 
action — that  such  only  is  consistent  with  Divine  wis- 
dom, or  human  capacity,  or  philosophical  theology. 
If  God  be  not  the  mere  pervading  intelligence,  which 
informs  the  universe,  but  which  can  exert  itself  only 
through  the  medium  of  things  in  the  universe ;  if,  on 
the  contrary.  He  is  a  personal,  present  ruler  and  guide, 
there  can  be  no  inconsistency  in  the  belief  that  He  may 
at  times  let  Himself  be  heard  by  those  who  can  hear 
Him — in  other  and  clearer  tones  than  the  voices  of 
mere  natural  phenomena,  or  even  of  the  intuitional 
consciousness. 

17.  ISTow,  the  common  course  which  we  see  philo- 
sophic scepticism  taking  at  present  is  this :  First,  there 
is  a  doubt  about  miracles,  then  about  special  inspira- 
tion. To  build  our  faith  in  any  degree  on  miracles  is 
unwise.  Inspiration  is  wholly  a  question  of  degree. 
One  man  has  by  the  teaching  or  breathing  of  God's 
Spirit  greater  insight  into  spiritual  truth  than  another. 
The  Apostles,  doubtless,  had  an  unusual  brightness  of 
such  vision,  and  so  we  may  truly  call  their  writings  in- 
spired ;  but  the  difference  between  their  inspiration  and 
that  of  St.  Augustine,  or  even  of  Plato,  is  but  a  difference 
of  degree.  Next  comes  a  doubt  or  a  denial  of  the  ex- 
istence of  personal  spiritual  beings.  The  devil,  Satan, 
wicked  spirits  are  but  names  for  a  general  evil  prin- 
ciple, wdiicli  we  cannot  but  see  and  feel  influencing  and 
pervading  ourselves  and  all  things  around  ns.  Angels 
are  soon  placed  in  tlie  same  category  ;  and  the  last  step 
of  all  reduces  God  Himself  to  a  principle  of  intelligence. 


Essay  VIL]  INSPIRATION.  355 

if  it  does  not  go  yet  farther,  and  make  Ilini  but  a 
law. 

But  in  all  honesty,  is  there  a  middle  course?  Does 
not  the  Bible  at  all  events — Old  Testament  and  New 
alike — speak  of  a  present,  personal  God,  of  a  multitude 
of  personal  spiritual  beings — some  good  and  others  evil 
— working  around  us  and  within  us,  of  miracles  wrought 
by  teachers  sent  from  God,  of  predictions  uttered  before 
the  event,  of  holy  men  of  old  moved  by  the  Spirit  of 
God  to  speak  things,  which  could  be  known  to  none 
but  God  Himself?  It  is  quite  impossible  to  get  rid  of 
all  this,  and  to  retain  the  Bible  as  in  any  proper  sense 
true.  Let  it  be  said,  that  good  men  who  wrote  books 
of  the  Bible  were  good  men,  but  spoke  according  to 
the  prejudices  of  their  times.  They  believed  in  proph- 
ecies and  miracles,  and  evil  spirits,  and  so  sp>oke  of 
them.  Their  inspiration  quickened  their  intuitions, 
but  it  did  not  make  them  infallible,  and  so  in  these 
matters  they  may  have  erred.  But,  if  Christianity  be 
Christianity,  and  not  a  system  of  mere  morals  and  j^hi- 
losophy,  there  was  One  Man,  who  was  so  much  more 
than  man,  that  if  we  disbelieve  Him,  we  make  God 
Himself  a  liar.  And  may  we  not  ask,  if  His  discourses 
be  not  so  unfaithfully  handed  down  to  us  that  we 
might  as  well  or  better  not  have  them  at  all,  whether 
He  did  not  perpetually  appeal  to  miracles,  whether  He 
did  not  continually  quote  prophecies  as  fulfilled  or 
soon  to  be  fulfilled,  whether  He  did  not  speak  much  of 
angels  and  devils,  whether  He  did  not  in  the  most 
signal  manner  promise  to  His  disciples  the  guidance 
and  teaching  of  His  Holy  Spirit,  to  bring  to  their  re- 
membrance all  that  He  had  said  to  them,  and  to  lead 
them  into  all  truth?  Is  it  possible  to  reject  all  this 
without  rejecting  Christ? 

18.  And  so  much  of  miracles  and  inspiration  gen- 
erally. Now  let  us  take  a  few  facts,  and  see  what  they 
seem  to  teach  us.  We  have  a  number  of  different 
books  written  in  different  styles,  indicating  the  different 
characters  of  the  writers.  At  times,  too,"there  appear 
slight  diversities  of  statements  in   trifling  matters  of 


35G  ^II^S  TO  FAITU.  [EssatVIL 

detail.  Here  \vc  mark  a  liuman  element.  If  God 
spoke,  it  is  plain  that  lie  si)oke  throngh  man ;  if  God 
inspired,  He  inspired  man.  Even  the  Gospel  miracles 
were  often  worked  with  some  instrumental  means ;  no 
wonder,  then,  that  when  God  would  teach  men,  He 
would  teach  tlirough  human  agency.  And  the  differ- 
ence of  style — perliaps  the  slight  discrepancies  in  state- 
ments— seem  to  satisfy  us  that  some  portions  at  least  of 
the  Bible  were  not  simply  dictated  by  God  to  man ; 
there  was  not  what  is  called  mere  mechanical  or  organic 
inspiration  ;  God  did  not  simply  speak  God's  words, 
using  as  a  mere  machine  man's  lips  to  speak  them  with. 
Of  course,  we  must  not  forget  the  benefit  we  derive 
from  these  differences  between  writers  of  the  same  nar- 
rative. The  apparent  or  trifling  discrepancies  in  the 
statements  of  the  different  Evangelists,  for  instance, 
convince  us  that  they  w^ere  independent  witnesses,  and 
that  the  whole  story  did  not  arise  from  some  well  con- 
certed plan  to  deceive  the  world  :4he  homely  and  even 
barbarous  style  of  some  of  the  writers  proves  to  us  that 
they  were  really  fishermen,  and  not  philosophers  ;  and 
so  we  have  a  convincing  evidence  that  the  deepest 
system  of  theology,  and  the  noblest  code  of  ethics  ever 
propounded — the  one  stirring  the  depths  of  the  whole 
human  heart,  the  other  guiding  all  liuman  life — came, 
not  from  the  profound  speculations  of  the  wisest  of 
mankind,  but  either  from  God  Himself,  or  else  from  a 
source  more  inexplicable  and  impossible ;  from  the 
poor,  the  narrow-minded,  and  the  untaught.  But  whilst 
we  see  tlie  benefit  of  all  this,  and  admire  the  wisdom 
which  so  ordered  it,  we  learn  from  it  that  there  must 
have  been  a  human  element  in  Scri])ture;  that  God 
may,  nay  must,  have  spoken,  but  that  he  dealt  liis  own 
common  dealing  with  us — that  is,  He  used  earthly  in- 
struments for  giving  heavenly  blessings,  human  means 
for  communicating  Divine  truth. 

JN'ow,  let  us  look  the  other  way.  Scripture  is  not  a 
mere  system  of  theology,  nor  is  it  a  mere  historical  rec- 
ord, if  it  were  either  or  both  of  these,  and  nothing 
more,  of  course  we  could  believe  that  nothing  might  bo 


Essay  Yil.J  INSriEATION.  357 

needed,  beyond  the  cplckening  of  the  intuitional  con- 
sciousness, to  euable  men  to  conceis^e  its  truths  and  to 
communicate  them  to  others.  There  is,  liowever,  as  has 
been  ah*eady  noticed,  a  distinctly  miraculous  element  in 
it ;  and  here,  if  we  admit  its  existence,  we  cannot  fail  to 
see  the  working  of  a  present,  ])ersonal  God.  Take  away 
the  miraculous  element,  and  we  may  easily  get  into  auy 
kind  of  philosophical  abstraction.  Admit  it,  and  we 
are  brought  back  again  into  the  iutelligible  region  of 
common,  plain  sense. 

If  anything  in  the  w^orld  can  be  supernatural  or  mi- 
raculous, it  surely  must  be  the  infallible  foreknowledge 
of  future  events.  No  elevation  of  the  intuitional  con- 
sciousness can  account  for  such  foreknowledge.  None 
can  certainly  foretell  the  future,  but  one  who  can  cer- 
tainly guide  the  future.  Do  we,  then,  admit  that  any 
of  the  prophets  in  the  Old  Testament  were  enabled  to 
foretell  coming  events,  the  events  of  the  Gospel  history 
in  particular?  Some  modern  writers  go  so  far  as  to 
deny  this  in  toto.  According  to  them  every  prophecy 
of  the  Old  Testament  concerned,  primarily  at  least,  con- 
temporaneous history,  or  history  so  nearly  contempora- 
neous, that  it  required  only  common  foresight  and  "  old 
experience"  to  look  into  it.  Burke  early  shadowed 
forth  the  French  Eevolution :  Isaiah,  on  the  same  prin- 
ciple, could  forewarn  Israel  of  its  dangers,  threaten  sin- 
ners with  punishment,  and  promise  protection  to  peni- 
tents. Of  course,  w^e  can  understand  such  a  view  ;  but 
can  we  admit  it  and  not  reject  Christianity?  And  let 
us  remember  that,  in  arguing  on  the  nature  of  inspira- 
tion, we  are  not  arguing  in  proof  of  Christianity ;  but 
that,  admitting  the  truth  of  Christianity,  we  are  inquir- 
ing into  somewhat  which,  as  has  been  already  observed, 
is  really  internal  to  Christianity.  Most  Christians  are 
ready  to  believe  that  the  passages  of  the  Old  Testament 
to  wdiich  our  Lord  and  his  Apostles  appealed,  as  proofs 
of  His  Divine  mission  and  of  the  truth  of  their  teaching, 
were  really  predictions,  and  not  guesses.  Tiiis  is  not 
the  place  to  enter  at  length  into  such  a  question.  But, 
if  we  just  think  of  what  Jacob  said  of  Shiloh — Moses, 


358  ^^^S  "^^  FAITH.  [Essay  Yll. 

of  a  prophet  like  liiniself — David  and  others,  of  a  great 
Son  of  David — Isaiah,  in  his  ninth  and  fifty -third  chap^ 
ters,  of  a  Child  bom,  a  Son  given,  called  Mighty  God, 
Eternal  Father,  Prince  of  Peace,  and  of  a  righteous  Ser- 
vant, on  whom  the  Loed  shoilld  lay  the  iniquity  of  ns 
all — Daniel,  of  Messiah  the  Prince,  cut  o£P,  l3ut  not  for 
Himself,  and  of  one  like  a  Son  of  Man,  to  whom  a  king- 
dom is  given  by  the  Ancient  of  days,  an  everlasting 
kingdom,  a  dominion  that  shall  not  pass  away — Haggai, 
of  the  glory  of  the  second  temple,  so  much  surpassing 
that  of  the  first — Malachi,  of  the  forerunner  of  the  Mes- 
siah— and  many  prophecies  of  like  kind ;  we  shall  feel 
that  the  burden  of  proof  must  lie  wdth  those  who  deny, 
not  wdth  those  'svho  believe,  that  there  were  prophets, 
who  bore  witness  to  the  coming  of  the  Christ  centuries 
before  His  birth.""-  We  jnay  remember  that  these  pre- 
dictions have  been  preserved  to  us  both  in  the  original 
Hebrew,  and  in  translations  made  from  the  Hebrew  be- 
fore the  birth  of  Christ,  made,  not  by  Christians,  but  by 
Jew^s — that  the  more  ancient  Jews  did  undeniably  in- 
terpret these  prophecies,  as  pointing  forward  to  a  prince 
wdio  should  be  sent  from  heaven  to  save  their  own  na- 
tion, and  to  bless  other  nations  in  them.  Compara- 
tively modern  Jews  have  explained  some  of  these  proph- 
ecies away,  because  they  too  manifestly  favour  the 
Christians;  but  even  so,  they  continue  to  believe  that 
the  Scriptures  foretold  a  Messiah.  Moreover,  we  have 
the  clearest  testimonies  from  Jews  and  Gentiles  alike 
(Jews  and  Gentiles  wdio  never  became  Christians,  and 
so  are  independent  w^itnesses)  that  in  the  East  generally, 
Oriente  toto^  and  especially  among  the  Israelites  them- 
selves, there  had  prevailed  an  ancient  and  constant  per- 
suasion that  by  Divine  appointment  a  Deliverer  was  to 

*  It  matters  little  to  this  argument  whether  all  the  books  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament were  written  by  those  whose  names  thej  bear ;  whether,  for  instance, 
the  last  chapters  of  Isaiah  were  Isaiah's  or  some  other's  ;  whether  the  book 
of  Daniel  was  written  at  the  time  of  the  captivity,  or  not  collected  till  some 
centuries  later.  It  is  certain  they  were  all  written  before  Christ ;  and  if  in 
them  there  be  found  prophecies  of  the  Messiah,  prophecies,  be  they  many 
or  few,  like  precious  stones  imbedded  in  a  rock;  we  have  then  the  phenom- 
enon existing,  and  we  have  to  explain  how  it  came.  Idoncum,  opinor, 
testimonium  divinita'iis  Veritas  diviuatiouis.     (Tert.  Aj)olog.  c.  20.) 


E6SAY  YIL]  INSPIRATION.  359 

arise  out  of  Judea,  wlio  should  have  dominiou;  and, 
moreover,  that  he  was  impatiently  expected  in  the 
reigns  of  the  early  emperors  of  Eome.  Jews,  who  have 
lived  since  those  times,  have  confessed  that  the  period 
l^resignified  is  apparently  past.  Now,  it  is  quite  cer- 
tain that  the  most  remarkahle  and  most  influential  re- 
ligious teachei-  that  ever  lived  .in  any  nation  upon  earth 
did  arise  and  live  in  Judea,  at  the  time  so  marked  and 
agreed  on.  It  is  undoubted  that  He  declared  the  pre- 
dictions in  question  to  have  pointed  to  Him.  His  fol- 
lowers have  always  claimed  them  as  fulfilled  in  Him. 
Of  all  religious  revolutions,  nay,  of  all  revolutions, 
moral,  spiritual,  social,  or  political,  ever  produced  in 
the  world,  He  has  produced  the  greatest,  the  most  in- 
fluential, the  most  extensive.  As  Christians,  we,  of 
course,  believe  that  He  was  the  Christ ;  and  we  are 
justified  in  urging  on  the  Jews  such  considerations  as 
the  above,  in  proof  that  their  own  cherished  Scriptures 
pointed  to  Him. 

Now,  if  the  prophets  really  did  centuries  before 
foresee  an  event,  most  unlikely,  but  which  we  have 
witnessed  as  true,  they  must  have  had  something  more 
than  the  inspiration  of  genius,  or  than  the  exalting  of 
their  intuitional  consciousness.  For,  whatever  degree 
of  insight  into  the  truth  of  things  spiritual  we  may  at- 
tribute to  such  intuitional  consciousness,  and  whatever 
communion  it  may  give  with  the  mind  of  God,  it  can 
hardly  be  said  to  make  us  ]3artakers  of  God's  omnis- 
cience, or  to  endue  us  with  His  powers  of  foresight. 

One  of  the  favourite  modes  of  evading  such  conclu- 
sions as  this,  and  so  one  of  the  favourite  positions  of  the 
low  inspirationists  is,  that  Nihil  in  scripto  quod  non 
prills  in  scriptore;  a  man  can  speak  nothing  but  what 
he  thinks.  In  a  sense  this  is  true  enough ;  and,  as  a 
general  rule,  wo  may  suppose  the  holy  men  of  old,  who 
spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  to  have 
been  first  gifted  with  the  knowledge  of  the  future,  and 
then  moved  to  communicate  that  knowledge  to  others. 
But  still,  if  there  be  an  overruling  and  over-guiding 
Providence  as  well  as  an  informing  and  inspiring  Spirit, 


360  -^II^S  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  YIL 

may  not  a  man  be  c^uided  to  speak  uiicoiiscloiisly  words 
of  deep  import  ?  AYe  see  this  in  the  Old  Testament  in 
the  case  of  Balaam.  If  the  liistory  of  him  be  not  a  false 
legend  or  a  mere  myth,  the  Almighty  told  him  that  he 
was  to  sj)eak  to  Balak  that  word  which  was  pnt  into  his 
mouth.  His  w^ill  was  quite  the  other  w^ay.  He  willed 
to  curse  Israel,  and  so  to  obtain  from  Balak  the  wages 
of  unrighteousness ;  but  his  own  will  was  overruled  by 
the  direct  command  of  God.  If  Balaam  prophesied,  if 
he  prophesied,  as  most  Christians  have  believed,  not 
only  of  the  future  fortunes  of  Israel,  but  of  the  future 
coming  of  Christ ;  it  is  certain  that  his  extraordinary 
knowledge  could  not  liave  been  the  result  of  his  purity 
of  heart  qualifying  him  to  see  God,  could  not  have 
come  from  the  clearing  away  of  those  clouds  of  sin,  and 
therefore  of  error,  which  darken  the  mental  vision ;  for 
his  heart  was  set  upon  covetousness,  and  he  perished 
with  the  enemies  of  God.  The  same,  or  much  the  same, 
may  be  said  of  Caiaphas,  who  was  altogether  bent  on 
evil,  and  yet  of  whom  the  Evangelist  testifies  that  *'  be- 
ing High  Priest  that  year  he  prophesied."  If  miracles 
are  impossible,  of  course  all  this  is  impossible.  But 
how  miracles  can  be  impossible,  unless  God  is  impossi- 
ble, it  seems  that  we  have  yet  to  learn. 

Though,  therefore,  we  may  not  generally  look  for  a 
work  of  the  Spirit  tlu'ough  the  mere  bodily  organs  of 
men,  w^ithout  an  elevation  of  their  souls ;  we  surely 
have  no  power  to  limit  the  operations  of  God,  or  to  say 
that  He  may  not,  if  He  will,  use  the  very  unconscious 
words  of  wicked  men  as  well  as  the  lieart  service  of 
pious  men. 

19.  But  farther,  is  it  not  true  that  Almighty  God 
has  made  even  acts  and  histories  to  prophes}^,  inde- 
pendently of  any  utterance  of  men's  mouths?  Are 
there  not  types  in  the  Law,  and  through  all  the  Old 
Testament  history,  which  have  their  antitypes  in  the 
New  Testament  ?  There  are  those,  no  doubt,  who  will 
say  that  we  can  find  historical  parallels  in  profane,  as 
readily  as  in  sacred,  history.  But  are  these  really  to 
be  compared  with  the  sacrifice  of  Isaac  typifying  the 


Essay  VIL]  INSPIRATION.  3Q2 

death  and  resurrection  of  Christ — with  the  history  of 
Joseph,  sold  by  his  brethren,  and  then  exalted  to  be 
their  prince  and  saviour — with  the  brazen  serpent, 
lifted  up  to  heal  all  that  looked  on  it — with  the  passage 
of  the  Red  Sea,  and  other  parables  put  forth  by  the 
history  of  the  Exodus — with  the  priesthood  of  Aaron, 
the  passover,  the  ceremonies  on  the  day  of  atonement, 
and  the  many  Levitical  rites  forepicturing  Christ — 
with  the  kingly  types,  such  as  David  and  Solomon — 
with  the  prophetic  parallelism  of  Elijah  and  John  the 
Baptist — and  the  many  others,  too  many  to  enumerate 
now  ?  *  If  there  be,  as  the  writers  of  the  'New  Testa- 
ment all  assert,  and  as  Christians  have  ever  hitherto 
believed,  a  complete  system  of  t^-pe  and  antitype  in 
the  Old  and  'New  Testament  respectively ;  to  what  can 
we  attribute  this,  but  to  an  overruling  Hand  guiding 
the  fortunes  of  the  chosen  race,  and  of  individuals  in 
that  race,  and  to  the  continual  presence  of  that  Holy 
Spirit  who  divideth  to  every  man  severally  as  He  will? 
Is  not  all  this  to  be  esteemed  a  special  inspiration  ? 
And  if  all  this  is  in  the  Old  Testament,  then,  whatever 
human  elements  there  be  in  it,  there  is  surely  such  a 
Divine  element  as  to  make  its  books  emphatically  the 
"  Oracles  of  God,"  to  which  we  may  look  as  unmistak- 
ably embodying  His  will  and  word.  We  may  admit 
that  the  word  of  God  so  embodied  in  the  Scriptures 
was  designed  to  communicate  to  us  great  moral  and 
spiritual  truths,  that  there  was  no  purpose  to  give  any 
revelation  of  physical  science  or  of  mere  general  his- 
toiy.  Yet  if  we  have  abundant  evidence  that  Al- 
mighty God  chose  the  prophets  and  the  books  of  the 
Bible  as  channels  for  communicating  His  will  to  man- 
kind, we   have   surely  abundant   evidence   that  they 

*  Professor  Jowett  thinks  we  must  give  up  the  types  appealed  to  in  the 
New  Testament,  just  as  we  do  not  press  the  patristic  appeal  to  the  scarlet 
thread  of  Rahab,  or  the  318  followers  of  Abraham.  That  is  to  say,  we  must 
attach  no  more  importance  to  the  language  of  the  Apostles,  or  of  our  blessed 
Lord  Himself,  than  to  the  language  of  any  Christian  writer  in  the  earlier 
days  of  Christianity.  The  New  Testament  has  appealed  to  types  of  Christ 
in  the  Old  Testament.  The  early  Christians  universally  acknowledged  such 
types,  but  perhaps  unwisely  found  moreover  certain  fanciful  resemblances 
unknown  to  the  Apostles  and  Evangelists.  Because  the  latter  were  fanciful, 
must  we  coucludc  that  the  former  were  false  ? 
16 


gQ2  ^^^^  TO  FAITH.  [EssatYII. 

would  not  be  permitted  to  err  in  things  pertaining  to 
God.  It  may  n.ot  be  proof  that  their  language  will 
not  be  popular,  and  so  possibly  inaccurate,  in  matters 
of  science,  or  that  their  statements  will  be  infallible  in 
the  matter  of  a  date  or  in  other  things  immaterial ;  but 
it  is  surely  proof  enough  that  they  would  never  be  per- 
mitted to  mislead  us  in  questions  of  faith  ;  for  other- 
wise they  would  bring  us  credentials  to  their  faithful- 
ness from  God  Himself,  and  with  these  credentials  in 
their  hands,  deceive,  and  mislead,  and  delude  us. 

And  here  may  we  not  see  the  fallacy  of  Coleridge's 
view,  who  accepts  Scripture  where  it  "  finds  "  him,  but 
not  in  its  less  interesting  and  merel}^  historical  records  ? 
If  we  go  on  this  principle,  where  are  we  to  stop  ?  If 
we  read  the  second  book  of  Chronicles,  perhaps  we 
may  discover  very  little  which  "  finds  "  us  ;  whereas, 
if  we  read  Baxter's  '  Saint's  Everlasting  Eest,'  it  may 
^'  find  "  us  in  nearly  every  page.  To  carry  out  Cole- 
ridge's ]3rinciple,  we  ought  to  uncanonize,  or  reject  the 
inspiration  of,  the  book  of  Chronicles,  and  set  up  as 
canonical  the  book  of  Baxter.  But,  if  our  former 
arguments  be  correct,  and  the  general  belief  of  Chris- 
tians in  all  ages  be  true,  the  whole  historical  record  of 
the  Old  Testament  is  part  of  the  great  depository  of 
God's  revealed  will.  One  part  may  be  more  important 
than  another.  But  when  we  see  that  God  spoke  by 
words  of  man,  and  also  by  acts  of  man — that  even 
actions  were  predictions — when  we  find  Christ  Him- 
self and  His  Apostles  citing  the  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, as  the  "  Scriptures,"  as  the  "  Oracles  of  God," 
as  "  God-breathed  "  {OeoTrvevo-ra) — surely  we  have  no 
right  to  say  that  one  part  "finds  me  "  and  another  does 
not,  and  to  settle  our  own  Canon  accordingly.  The 
whole  collection  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament 
comes  to  us  with  Divine  credentials — prophecies  in  it 
fulfilled  after  they  were  uttered — Christ's  attestation  to 
them,  that  they  all  testified  of  Him— St.  Paul's  testi- 
mony to  them  that  they  were  ''  given  by  inspiration  of 
God" — and,  having  such  Pivine  credentials,  we  cannot 


Essay  Vll.J  I^'SPIIIATION.  3^3 

suppose  that  any  of  these  books  would  mislead  us,  at 
least  ill  things  heavenly. 

20.  If  all  this  holds  of  the  Old  Testament,  it  holds, 
d  fortiori^  of  the  Xew  ;  for  probably  no  one  will  con- 
tend that  the  Apostles,  with  Christ's  own  mission,  with 
the  gift  of  tongues  and  miraculous  powers,  with  the 
special  promise  of  the  Comforter  and  of  guidance  by 
Him  into  all  truth,  with  the  assurance  of  Christ's  own 
presence,  and  with  the  command  to  preach  on  the 
house-tops  what  lie  had  told  them  in  the  ear, — were 
in  a  worse  position  or  more  liable  to  error  than  the 
prophets  of  the  Old  Testament.  And,  though  we  may 
well  believe  that  each  individual  Apostle,  like  every 
Christian  man,  may  have  grown  in  grace  and  in  the 
knowledge  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ ;  yet 
this  belief  need  in  no  wise  interfere  with  our  acknowl- 
edgment that  messengers,  specially  accredited  by  God 
to  man,  would  never  be  permitted  to  deliver  a  false 
message,  or  to  mislead  those  whom  they  were  so  signal- 
ly commissioned  to  lead.'^ 

For  Mr.  Maurice's  question,  as  to  whether  we  ought 
not  to  consider  the  inspiration  of  Holy  Scripture  like  to 
that  inspiration  for  which  all  of  us  pray,  there  seems 
but  little  difficulty  in  the  reply.     IJndoubtedly,  the 

*  Revelation  has  all  along  been  progressive,  but  not  on  that  account  self- 
contradictory.  Abel  offerecTthe  firstlings  of  Lis  flock;  Abraham  offered  a 
ram  instead  of  his  son;  Moses  instituted  the  Paschal  sacrifice;  John  the 
Baptist  pointed  to  "  the  Lamb  of  God,  which  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the 
world;"  St.  Paul  spoke  of  "Christ  our  Passover ;"  St.  Peter  of  "the  pre- 
cious blood  of  Christ,  as  of  a  lamb  without  blemish  and  without  spot." 
There  is  the  same  testimony  here  through  a  course  of  at  least  four  thousand 
years ;  but  yet  the  knowledge  was  progressive.  John  the  Baptist  knew  more 
of  Christ  than  all  that  before  him  had  been  born  of  woman,  but  less  than  the 
least  in  the  kingdom  of  the  Saviour.  What  is  true  of  the  knowledge  of  the 
Church  may  be  equally  true  of  the  knowledge  of  the  Apostles.  If  they  had 
not  been  capable  of  growth  in  wisdom,  they  would  not  have  been  human  ;  but 
no  proof  whatever  has  yet  been  given  that  the  testimony  of  one  Apostle  is, 
on  points  of  Christian  doctrine,  in  conflict  with  the  testimony  of  another,  or 
that  the  more  matured  knowledo;e  of  any  particular  Apostle  ever  led  him  to 
contradict,  in  the  least  degree,  his  own  former  witness  to  the  truth.  Cer- 
tainly they  themselves  always  appeal  to  the  consistency  of  their  own  teachin<|, 
and  denounce  all  teaching  which  is  inconsistent  with  their  own.  "  Though 
we  or  an  angel  from  heaven  preach  any  other  Gospel  unto  you  than  that 
which  we  have  preached  unto  you,  let  him  be  accursed."  (Gal.  i.  8.)  "  If 
there  come  any  unto  you,  and  bring  not  this  doctrine,  receive  him  not  into 
your  house,  neither  bid  him  God  speed."     ('J  John  10.) 


364  AIDS  TO  FAITH,  [Essay  Y II 

inspiration  for  which  we  pray  is  the  same  as  the  inspi- 
ration of  the  writers  of  Scripture — that  is  to  say,  it  is 
the  inspiration  of  God's  Holy  Spirit  which  guides  not 
only  into  holiness,  but  also  into  truth.  Probably  pious 
men  in  general  never  begin  any  work  of  importance 
without  praying  for  grace  and  guidance  ;  but  when  they 
do  so,  they  do  not  expect  to  be  answered  with,  for  in- 
stance, the  gift  of  tongues.  They  ask  for  the  w^ord  of 
wisdom  or  the  word  of  knowledge,  not  for  the  work- 
ing of  miracles;  yet  they  look  for  it  from  one  and 
the  selfsame  Spirit.  And  surely  we  may  admit  that 
that  great  Teacher  of  the  Church  may  teach  one  in  one 
way  and  another  in  another.  It  may  be  His  will  to 
give  one  a  deep  insight  into  spiritual  mysteries,  but  yet 
not  to  give  him  a  knowledge  of  future  events.  To  an- 
other, at  a  particular  period  of  the  Church,  or  under  a 
peculiar  dispensation,  he  may  give  the  power  of  proph- 
ecy, or  the  gift  of  tongues,  or  the  working  of  miracles, 
or  such  guidance  and  direction  as  shall  render  his  tes- 
timony, as  to  things  heavenly,  infallibly  true.  Are  we 
to  deny  that  God  can  do  so  ?  Or  again — is  it  impossi- 
ble for  him  to  give  such  a  knowledge  except  in  the  way 
of  giving  a  higher  degree  of  sanctification,  purifying 
the  soul  from  all  that  may  darken  the  understanding, 
and  so  sharpening  the  spiritual  insight?  Such  a  view 
of  things  is  surely  in  direct  opposition  to  the  constant 
record  of  the  Bible.  If  it  be  true,  it  must  convict  the 
writers  of  the  books  of  the  Bible  of  false  testimony.  Is 
it  not  clearly  set  down  that  Balaam — that  "  the  mian  of 
God,  wdio  Avas  disobedient  to  the  word  of  the  Lord  " — 
that  Jonah,  who  fled  from  God's  presence — that  Caia- 
phas,  even  when  compassing  Christ's  crucifixion — were 
all  empowered  to  speak  of  future  things,  and  some  of 
them  sorely  against  their  wills  ?  Although  it  is  most 
likely  that  God  would  in  general  use  sanctified  instru- 
ments to  speak  to  man  of  sacred  things,  yet,  if  the 
record  of  the  Bible  be  true,  there  may  be  a  revelation 
to  the  mind,  and  so  through  the  mouths  of  men,  which 
is  not  the  result  of  high  sanctification,  of  purity ing  the 
heart  that  it  may  see  God.     A  man  may  have  *'  the 


Essay  VII.]  INSPIRATION.  3(55 

gift  of  prophecy  and  understand  all  mysteries  and  all 
knowledge,"  may  "  speak  with  the  tongues  of  men  and 
angels,"  and  yet  lack  charity  and  be  nothing. 

21.  And  so,  to  pass  to  another  view  of  the  question, 
Mr.  Morell  argues  that  the  Divine  or  religious  truth 
can  only  be  revealed  to  our  highest  and  deepest  intui- 
tional consciousness.  It  is  not  to  be  received  by  the 
senses,  by  the  understanding,  or  by  the  reason,  but 
deeper  down  still  in  our  inmost  being.  There  is  no 
reason  to  quarrel  with  this  statement  so  far  as  it  goes. 
Its  fault  is,  that  it  is  one-sided.  "  When  it  pleased  God 
to  reveal  his  son  in  "  St.  Paul,  doubtless  the  revelation 
was  not  to  the  intellect  only,  but  to  the  very  heart  of 
hearts.  But  there  may  be  abundant  head-knowledge 
without  any  such  revelation  to  the  soul  and  spirit.  And 
must  we  not  distinguish  here  between  objective  and 
subjective  revelation?  Of  course  objective  revelation 
must  suppose  a  subject ;  that  is  to  say,  if  an  object  is  to 
be  revealed,  there  must  be  a  subject  by  which  that  ob- 
ject may  be  embraced  and  conceived.  But  is  it  not 
plain  to  common  sense,  setting  aside  all  logical  sub- 
tilty,  that  there  may  be  an  outward  manifesting  {cpavi- 
pcDCTi^,  if  a'iT0K6Xv^\n<;  be  ambiguous)  of  God  to  man, 
without  any  inward  reception  of  Him  to  the  soul  ?  And 
if  so,  may  not  a  man  be  taught,  as  Daniel  or  St.  John, 
by  a  vision  of  God,  and  yet,  like  Balaam  or  Jonah,  not 
have  his  soul  converted  to  God?  He  may  "see  the 
vision  of  the  Almighty,  falling  into  a  trance,  and  hav- 
ing his  ej^es  open ; "  and  yet  his  heart  may  not  be 
opened  to  know  and  to  love  God.  It  really  seems  as 
if  Mr.  Maurice,  Mr.  Morell,  and  others  of  similar  sen- 
timents, deny  the  possibility  of  this.'"  But  on  what 
principle  can  it  be  denied,  except  on  a  principle  which 
rejects  all  that  is  miraculous,  and  which  makes  God, 
nut  a  Personal  Being,  but  an  impersonal  influence  ? 

*  Of  course,  Professor  Baden  Powell  must  have  held  this  impossible,  be- 
cause he  held  that  lliere  was  no  contact  point  between  the  spiritual  and  the 
physical  worlds.  They  lie,  according  to  him,  in  two  distinct  planes,  which 
Can  never  come  in  contact.  But  to'what  nuist  such  a  theory  lead  short  of 
Materialism  and  Atheism,  in  minds  of  the  common  stamp  ? 


^QQ  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  VIL 

22.  But  if  we  believe  that  God  lias  in  different  ages 
authorized  certain  persons  to  comnumicate  objective 
truth  to  mankind,  if  in  the  Old  Testament  history  and 
tlie  books  of  the  prophets  we  find  manifest  indications 
of  the  Creator,  it  is  then  a  secondary  consideration,  and 
a  question  on  which  we  may  safely  agree  to  differ, 
whether  or  not  every  book  of  the  Old  Testament  was 

■written  so  completely  under  the  dictation  of  God's  Holy 
Spirit,  that  every  word,  not  only  doctrinal,  but  also 
historical  or  scientific,  must  be  infallibly  correct  and 
true.  The  whole  collection  of  the  books  has  been  pre- 
served providentially  to  the  Church  as  the  record  of 
God's  early  dealings  with  mankind,  and  especially  with 
one  chosen  race,  as  the  collection  of  the  prophecies  and 
of  the  religious  instruction  which  God  was  pleased  to 
communicate  to  man  in  the  preparatory  dispensations 
of  His  grace  :  and  with  these  there  is  a  book  of  sacred 
psalmody,  embodying  the  religious  experience  of  men 
living  under  the  Theocracy,  some  at  least  of  the  hymns 
contained  in  it  evincing  the  power  of  prophecy  in  their 
writers.  Whatever  conclusion,  then,  may  be  arrived 
at  as  to  the  infallibility  of  the  writers  on  matters  of 
science  or  of  history,  still  the  whole  collection  of  the 
books  will  be  really  the  oracles  of  God,  the  Scriptures 
of  God,  the  record  and  depository  of  God's  supernatu- 
ral revelations  in  early  times  to  man.  And  we  may 
remember  that  our  Blessed  Lord  quotes  the  Psalms  as 
the  Scripture,  adding,  *'  And  the  Scripture  cannot  be 
broken." 

23.  It  has  been  already  observed  that  what  holds 
good  of  the  Old  Testament  holds  d  fortiori  of  the  jSTew. 
If  the  writers  of  it  were  the  accredited  messengers  from 
God  to  man,  taught  by  Christ,  assured  by  Him  of  the 
teaching  of  His  Holy  Spirit,  sent  to  bring  to  man  the 
knowledge  of  God  and  of  His  highest  truths,  we  can- 
not doubt  that  that  Spirit,  who  was  to  guide  them  into 
all  truth,  would  never  let  them  err  in  things  pertaining 
to  God.  This  is  really  what  we  want.  AVe  w^ant  to  be 
assured  that  we  have  an  infallihle  depository  of  7'clig- 
ious  truth.     And  if  we  are  satisfied  that  the  Apostles 


Essay  VII.]  INSPIEATION.  3q^ 

were  accredited  messengers  for  delivering  God's  mes- 
sage and  communicating  God's  truth  to  the  world, 
clearly  we  have  this  assurance.  It  may,  no  doubt,  be 
true  that  all  ministers  of  Christ  in  all  ages  are  God's 
accredited  messengers  ;  but  the  difference  is  this  :  the 
Apostles  had  new  truths  to  deliver  direct  from  heaven  ; 
other  ministers  of  Christ  have  old  truths  to  impress — 
truths  which  may  perhaps  be  new  to  their  hearers,  but 
which  are  old  to  the  Church.  In  the  one  case  there  is 
a  direct  commission  with  a  need  of  infallibility  in  things 
spiritual ;  in  the  other  the  mission  is  through  the  inter- 
vention of  others,  and  with  the  power  of  correcting 
errors  by  appealing  to  the  authority  of  the  written 
record. 

If  we  can  establish  this  much,  then  there  seems  no 
need  to  fear  the  admission  of  a  human  element,  as  well 
as  a  Divine,  in  Scripture.  The  Apostles  had  the  treas- 
ure of  the  Gospel  in  earthen  vessels.  The  Holy  Spirit 
taught  the  Churches  through  the  instrumentality  of 
men  of  like  passions  with  ourselves.  The  difficulty  of 
enunciating  a  definite  theory  of  inspiration  consists  ex- 
actly in  this — in  assigning  the  due  weight  respectively 
to  the  Divine  and  the  human  elements.  A  human  ele- 
ment there  clearly  was.  Though  in  instances  like  those 
of  Balaam  and  Caiaphas  we  seem  to  have  something 
more  like  organic  inspiration,  yet  in  ordinary  cases 
God  was  pleased  to  take  the  nobler  instruments  of 
man's  thoughts  and  hearts  through  which  to  communi- 
cate a  knowledge  of  Himself  to  the  world,  rather  than 
to  act  through  the  organs  of  speech,  moving  men's 
mouths  as  mere  machines.  With  all  the  pains  and 
ingenuity  which  have  been  bestowed  upon  the  subject, 
no  charge  of  error,  even  in  matters  of  human  knowl- 
edge, has  ever  yet  been  substantiated  against  any  of 
the  writers  of  Scripture.  But,  even  if  it  had  been 
otherwise,  is  it  not  conceivable  that  there  might  have 
been  infallible  Divine  teaching  in  all  things  spiritual 
and  heavenly,  whilst  on  mere  matters  of  history,  or  of 
daily  life.  Prophets  and  Evangelists  might  have  been 
suffered  to  write  as  men  ?     Even  if  this  were  true,  we 


3(58  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  VII. 

need  not  be  per])lcxecl  or  disquieted,  so  we  can  be 
agreed  that  tlie  Divine  element  was  ever  such  as  to 
secure  the  infallible  truth  of  Scripture  in  all  things 
Divine. 

24.  All  this,  of  course,  is  applicable  to  questions  of 
physical  science.  Scripture  was  not  given  to  teach  us 
science,  but  to  teach  us  religion  ;  it  may  not  have  been 
needful  that  the  inspired  writers  should  have  been  ren- 
dered infkllible  in  matters  of  science,  nor  is  it  at  all 
likely  that  they  should  have  been  directed  to  teach  to 
the  ancient  world  truths  which  would  anticipate  the 
discoveries  either  of  ^Newton  or  of  Cuvier.  It  would 
have  been  almost  as  strange  if  they  had  not  used  pop- 
ular expressions  in  writing  on  such  subjects,  as  if  they 
Iiad  written  not  in  the  tongue  of  their  own  people,  but  in 
a  new  dialect  more  refined  and  philosophical.  But  may 
we  not  ask,  whether  in  this  question  of  physical  science, 
as  in  many  like  things,  sceptical  writers  have  not  been 
sharp-sighted  on  minute  discrepancies,  whilst  they 
have  been  blind  to  the  great  general  harmony  of  truth  ? 
It  is  ever  so ;  each  petty  difference  of  date,  each  little 
inconsistency  in  two  concurrent  narratives,  every,  the 
slightest  appearance  of  doubtful  morality,  anything  like 
a  supposed  repugnance  to  wliat  we  consider  the  neces- 
sary attributes  of  the  Most  High,  have  been  dwelt  on 
and  magnified,  and  used  as  objections  to  the  inspiration 
of  Holy  AYrit ;  whilst  the  general  truth  of  its  history, 
the  purity  and  holiness  of  its  general  moral  teaching, 
the  grandeur  and  sublimity  of  its  doctrines  concerning 
God,  are  altogether  forgotten  or  concealed.  Yet  is  it 
not  true  that,  both  in  moral  and  in  physical  science, 
nothing  short  of  miraculous  inspiration  can  account  for 
the  superior  knowledge  of  the  writers  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment compared  with  the  most  enlightened  sages  of 
heathen  antiquity?  The  Jewish  philosophers,  like 
Philo,  felt  that  the  Scriptures  of  their  own  prophets 
had  brought  in  simple  language  to  their  unlettered  fel- 
low-countrymen moral  and  spiritual  truths,  after  which 
the  Platonists  had  been  "  seeking,  if  haply  they  might 
feel  after  them  and  find  them."     Greeks,  J  ike  Justin 


Essay  VII.]  INSPIRATION.  3(39 

Martyr,  who  liad  tried  one  school  of  philosophy  after 
another,  discovered  in  the  Gospel  all  that  was  most 
valuable  in  the  teaching  of  all  schools.  And  may  not 
w^e,  who  have  come  upon  an  age  of  rapid  discovery  in 
physical  science,  confess  that  the  account  given  of  the 
Creator  and  His  works  in  the  Bible  was  an  anticipation 
and  is  an  epitome  of  all  that  has  lately  come  to  light  ? 
The  telescope  has  revealed  to  us  worlds  and  systems  of 
worlds  rolling  in  unbroken  order  through  infinity  of 
space  ;  the  microscope  lias  shown  us  living  and  organ- 
ised beings  so  small  as  to  bewilder  the  mind  with  their 
minuteness  as  the  suns  and  planets  bewilder  it  with 
their  vastness;  the  geologist  takes  us  back  through 
countless  ages,  the  records  of  which  are  indelibly  en- 
graven "  as  with  lead  in  the  rock  for  ever."  And  the 
Bible,  but  no  other  ancient  book  that  is  written,  had 
told  us  that  the  Being  wdio  created  all  things  was  such 
that  the  Heaven  and  the  Heaven  of  Heavens  could  not 
contain  Him,  that  He  was  the  High  and  lofty  One  in- 
habiting eternity,  but  that  though  He  had  His  dwelling 
so  high,  yet  He  humbled  Himself  to  behold  the  things 
that  are  in  heaven  and  earth,  that  a  sparrow  did  not 
fall  without  Him,  that  the  veiy  hairs  of  man's  head 
w^ere  numbered  by  Him.  Infinite  greatness,  infinite 
minuteness,  infinity  of  duration,  infinity  of  action,  eter- 
nity of  past  existence  and  of  past  operation,  as  well  as 
an  eternity  of  the  future,  are  all  distinctly  predicated 
in  the  Scriptures  of  the  mind  of  Him  who  made  us  all. 
And  here  for  the  first,  time,  now  in  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury, we  find  the  same  infinity  in  heaven  and  in  earth, 
and  in  the  sea,  and  under  the  earth. 

Why,  then,  must  we  be  puzzled  because  some  re- 
cently discovered  geological  phenomena  seem  hard  to 
reconcile  with  a  few  verses  in  one  chapter  of  Genesis  ? 
Are  w^e  to  forget  the  marvellous  harmony  between 
God's  word  ancl  His  works,  which  a  general  view  of 
both  convinces  us  of,  because  there  are  some  small 
fragments  of  both,  which  we  have  not  yet  learned  to  fit 
into  each  other?  Nay  !  even  here,  we  may  fairly  say,  that 
the  harmony  ali'cady  found  is  greater  than  the  as  yet 
10* 


370  ^^^^  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  VIL 

unexplained  discord.  For,  ])utting  aside  all  doubtful 
interpretations  and  difficult  questions  concerning  the 
six  days  of  creation  and  the  like,  these  two  facts  are 
certain  ;  all  sound  criticism  and  all  geological  inquiry 
prove  them  alike  ;  viz.,  first,  that  the  original  creation 
of  the  universe  was  at  a  period  indefinitely,  if  not  infi- 
nitely, distant  from  the  present  time ;  and  secondly, 
that  of  all  animated  beings,  the  last  that  came  into  ex- 
istence was  man.  Geology  has  taught  us  both  these 
facts ;  but  the  first  verse  of  Genesis  clearly  teaches  the 
first,  and  the  twenty-sixth  verse  teaches  the  second. 

To  touch  but  for  a  moment  on  one  other  subject  which 
has  been  so  strongly  pressed  of  late,  the  uniform  preva- 
lence of  law,  not  only  in  things  inanimate,  but  where 
there  is  life  and  even  reason  and  morality — can  any- 
thing be  more  consistent  than  this  with  the  whole  of 
the  Old  Testament?  Indeed  its  peculiar  teaching  from 
first  to  last  ma}^  be  said  to  have  been  that  God  is  a  God 
of  order ;  that  He  has  impressed  His  law  on  all  crea- 
tion ;  that  all  things  serve  Him,  all  things  obey  Him ; 
that  to  break  laws,  whether  moral  or  physical,  is  inev- 
itably to  entail  suff'ering ;  and  that  even  rational  and 
spiritual  beings,  even  in  their  rational  and  spiritual 
natures  and  capacities,  are  subject  to  laws  which  can- 
not be  broken ;  that  the  sins  of  the  fathers  go  down  in 
sin  and  sorrow  to  the  children ;  and  that  even  repent- 
ance, though  it  may  save  the  soul,  cannot  undo  the  sin 
or  avert  the  suff'ering.  There  is  nowhere  in  creation  or 
in  history  written  more  plainly  the  record  of  order  and 
law. 

25.  Surely  such  thoughts  as  these  seem  fit  to  satisfy 
us,  that  God's  works  rightly  read  are  not  likely  to  con- 
tradict God's  word  rightly  interpreted.  There^will  be 
for  a  time,  perhaps  for  all  time,  apparent  difficulties. 
When  new  questions  arise,  at  first  many  will  feel  that 
it  is  hopeless  to  attempt  to  solve  them.  Some  will 
despair,  some  will  try  to  smother  inquiry ;  some  will 
rush  into  Atheism,  and  others  will  fiall  back  into  super- 
stition. Patience  is  the  proper  temper  for  an  age  like 
our  own,  which  is  in  many  Avays  an  age  of  transition. 


Essay  VII.]  INSPIEATION.  q^i 

The  discoveries  of  Galileo  seemed  more  alarming  to  his 
contemporaries  than  any  discoveries  in  geology  or  sta- 
tistics can  seem  to  us.  We  see  no  difficulty  in  Galileo's 
discoveries  now.  Such  things,  then,  are  probably  the 
proper  trials  of  our  faith.  Sober  views,  patience, 
prayer,  a  life  of  godliness,  and  a  good  conscience,  will, 
no  doubt,  keep  us  from  making  shipwreck  of  faith. 
What  now  seems  like  a  shadow  may  only  be  the  proof 
that  there  is  a  light  behind  it.  And  even  if  at  times 
there  should  come  shadows  seeming  like  deep  night, 
we  may  hope  that  the  dawn  of  the  morning  is  but  the 
nearer. 


ESSAY    YIII. 

THE     DEATH     OF     C  HE  1ST. 


CONTENTS  OF  ESSAY  VIII. 


PAGE. 

TuE  Essay  is  addressed  to  those 
who  attach  some  preternatural 
efficacy  to  the  Eedeemers  suifer 
ings  for  men,  but  propose  to  alter 
the  terms  in  which  it  is  usually 
conveyed 375 


I.— The  Scripture  doctrine       . .     . . 

1.  In  the  three  first  Evangelists 

2.  Especially  the  institution  of 

the  Last  Supper    . .     . 

3.  In  St.  John's  Gospel 

4.  The  Baptist       . .     . . 

5.  The  Apostolic  teaching 

6.  The  Epistles  in  general 

7.  Epistle  of  St.  James 

8.  Epistlesof  St.  Peter 

9.  Epistles  of  St.  John 

10.  Epistles  of  St.  Paul 

11.  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews 

12.  Harmony  of  Scripture  upon 

the  Atonement     ..     ., 


II.— 1.  The     doctrine    of    Church 

writers        391 


376 
377 


379 

381 
382 
883 
384 
385 
3SG 
387 


381 


PAGE. 

2.  Atonement  often  implied  in 
another  doctrine,  in  con- 
troversies        892 

8.  Wrong   account    by  modern 

writers  of  patristic  teaching  393 

4.  Irenaeus      394 

5.  Athanasius        896 

6.  Other  writers 393 

7.  Anselm       400 

8.  How  far  original      402 

9.  "  Sacrifice"  and  "  Satisfaction"  403 

10.  Defects  of  Anselm's   system  404 

11.  Summary 405 

III. — 1.  Modern  repugnance  to  the 

doctrine        406 

2.  Guilt  caused    by  others  and 

cured  by  another       . .     . .  406 

3.  Bin    revealed    to    us    by  its 

crowning  act — the  death  of 

the  Lord        409 

4.  The  wrath  of  God          . .     . .  411 

5.  Did  Christ  bear  it  ?        . .     . .  412 

6.  Conclusion 418 


THE  DEATH   OF  CHRIST. 


Jesus,  the  Son  of  God,  died  on  the  Cross  to  redeem 
mankind  from  sin  and  death.  This  is  the  tnith  whieli 
for  eighteen  centimes  has  been  preached  to  Jew  and 
Gentile ;  the  truth  which  the  Apostles  took  in  their 
mouths  when  they  went  to  teach  Christianity  to  nations 
who  had  never  heard  of  Christ  before.  The  doctrine 
of  Eeconciliation  has  not  escaped  the  fate  of  other 
Christian  truths  :  it  has  done  and  is  doing  its  work  in 
converting  the  world,  and  consoling  many  a  crushed 
heart ;  but  at  the  same  time  the  terms  in  which  it 
should  be  set  forth  have  been  disputed,  and  sometimes 
the  doctrine  itself  denied.  Recent  writers  have  dis- 
cussed the  subject,  avowing  for  the  most  part  the  wish 
to  preserve  the  tenet  itself ;  but  in  some  cases  dealing 
so  hardly  with  the  evidence  on  which  it  rests,  as  to 
leave  an  impression  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Atone- 
ment is  a  modern  invention,  which  can  well  be  dis- 
pensed with  in  teaching  Christianity ;  and  some  even 
speak  of  it  as  a  dishonour  to  God  the  Father,  in  that 
it  represents  Him  as  accepting  the  sufferings  of  the 
innocent  foi  the  guilty.  The  present  Essay  is  du-ected 
to  those  who  profess  to  attach  to  the  sufferings  of  the 
Redeemer  some  preternatural  efficacy,  beyond  that  of 
mere  example,  yet  who  would  substitute  for  the  re- 
ceived account  of  their  effect  some  other  doctrine. 
With  those  who  utterly  deny  the  doctrine  ef  Atone- 
ment we  have  nothing  here  to  do,  except  to  wish  them 
an  increased  consciousness  of  the  need  of  a  purgation 
from  sin :  for  when  Christ  is  needed,  then,  and  not 
sooner,  He  will  be  found  ;  when  man  sees  the  serpent 
twining  round  his  limbs,  and  feels  serpent-poison  beat- 


376  ^^^S  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  VIII. 

ing  in  his  blood,  and  sees  over  all  liis  beauty  and  gloiy 
the  serpent's  defiling  trail,  he  will  look  to  the  Son  of 
Man  lifted  up,  and  be  healed.  But  the  promise  that 
the  doctrine  shall  in  spirit  be  preserved,  but  heightened 
and  spiritualized,  has  much  attraction  for  the  inquiring. 
Li  approaching  them  with  the  key  of  a  profounder 
gnosis,  men  profess  to  give  to  the  well-worn  pages  of 
the  Bible  the  freshness  and  originality  which  is  all  they 
need.  And  the  attempt  in  this  Essay  will  be  to  shov/ 
that  the  doctrine  of  the  Atonement,  although  a  mys- 
tery, is  made  known  to  us  in  the  Bible  in  certain  strong 
and  definite  touches  which  allow  of  no  mistake ;  that 
this  doctrine  has  been,  in  fact,  continuously  held  and 
taught  in  the  Church,  altering  from  time  to  time  in 
form,  but  in  substance  neither  gaining  anything  nor 
losing  anything ;  and  that  the  difficulties,  which  beset 
this  as  they  do  other  mysteries,  are  not  at  all  lightened 
by  the  remedies  proposed  on  behalf  of  human  reason, 
but  rather  increased. 

I.  Much  has  been  made  of  the  supposed  silence  of 
our  Lord  as  to  the  atoning  virtue  of  His  death ;  and 
it  has  even  been  hinted  that  in  this  respect  the  words 
of  Jesus  are  at  variance  with  those  of  His  Apostles." 
If  these  were  so,  the  question  Avould  bear  no  discus- 
sion ;  and  much  else  would  fall  to  the  ground  at  the 
same  time.  The  only  proof  of  it  which  we  are  offered 
is,  that  Christ  Himself  * 'never  uses  the  word  sacrifice"t 
as  applied  to  His  own  life  or  death.  But  this  is  a 
purely  artificial  test.  It  remains  still  to  inquire  what 
the  Lord  does  say  of  that  death ;  for  such  is  the  co- 
piousness of  language,  that  an  act  which  has  the  nature 
of  a  sacrifice  may  be  described  without  the  use  of  that 
particular  word.  When  He  speaks  of  **  My  blood  of 
the  new  Covenant,"  no  doubt  the  word  sacrifice  is  dis- 
pensed with ;   but  there  must  be  very  few,  we  should 

*  Professor  Jowctt  on  the  Episiles,  ii.  550.  "  In  [the  ■words  of  Christ]  is 
contained  the  inner  life  of  mankind  and  of  the  Church;  there  too  the  indi- 
vidual beholds,  as  in  a  glass,  the  image  of  a  goodness  which  is  not  of  this 
world.  To  rank  their  authority  leloxo  that  of  the  Apostles  and  Evanrrelifts, 
is  to  give  up  the  last  hope  of  reuniting  Christendom  in  itself,  and  of  making 
Christianity  an  universal  religion." 

t  Ibid. 


ESSAY  VIII.]  THE  DEATH  OF  CUEIST.  3^^ 

hope,  wlio  cannot  discern  in  such  words  the  "  sacrificial 
allusion." 

1.  The  three  first  Evangelists,  as  we  know,  agree 
in  showing  that  Jesus  unfolded  His  message  to  the 
disciples  by  degrees.  He  wrought  the  miracles  that 
were  to  be  the  credentials  of  the  Messiah ;  He  laid 
down  the  great  principles  of  the  Gospel  morality  until 
He  had  established  in  the  minds  of  the  Twelve  the 
conviction  that  He  was  the  Christ  of  God.  Tlien  as 
the  clouds  of  gloom  grew  darker,  and  the  malice  of  the 
Jews  became  more  intense,  He  turned  a  new  page  in 
His  teaching.  Drawing  from  His  disciples  the  confes- 
sion of  their  faith  in  Him  as  Christ,  He  then  passed 
abruptly,  so  to  sj^eak,  to  the  truth  that  remained  to  be 
learnt  in  the  last  few  months  of  His  ministry,  that  His 
work  included  sufiering  as  well  as  teaching.*  He  was 
instant  in  pressing  this  unpalatable  doctrine  home  to 
His  disciples,  from  this  time  to  the  end.  Tour  occa- 
sions when  He  prophesied  His  bitter  death  are  on  rec- 
ord, and  they  are  probably  only  examples  out  of  many 
more.f  We  grant  that  in  none  of  these  places  does  the 
word  sacrifice  occur  ;  and  that  the  mode  of  speaking  is 
somewhat  obscure,  as  addressed  to  minds  unprepared, 
even  then,  to  bear  the  full  weight  of  a  doctrine  so  re- 
pugnant to  their  hopes.  But  that  He  must  (Set)  go  and 
meet  death  ;  that  the  powers  of  sin  and  of  this  world 
are  let  loose  against  Him  for  a  time,  so  that  He  shall 
be  betrayed  to  the  Jews,  rejected,  delivered  by  them 
to  the  Gentiles,  and  by  them  mocked  and  scourged, 
crucified,  and  slain  ;  and  that  all  this  was  done  to 
achieve  a  foreseen  work,  and  accomplish  all  things 
written  of  Him  by  the  prophets — these  we  do  certainly 
find.  They  invest  the  death  of  Jesus  with  a  peculiar 
significance ;  they  set  the  mind  inquiring  what  the 
meaning  can  be  of  this  hard  necessity  that  is  laid  on 
Him.  For  the  answer  we  look  to  other  places  ;  but  at 
least  there  is  here  no  contradiction  to  the  doctrine  of 
sacrifice,  though  the  Lord  does  not  yet  say,  ''  I  bear 
the  wrath  of  God  against  your  sins  in  your  stead  ;   I 

*  Matt.  xvi.  20,  21.  t  Matt.  xvi.  21. 


3^8  AIDS  TO  TAITH.  [Essay  VIIL 

become  a  curse  for  you."  Of  tlie  two  sides  of  this  mys- 
terious doctrine, — that  Jesus  dies  for  us  willingly,  and 
that  He  dies  to  bear  a  doom  laid  on  Him  as  of  neces- 
sity, because  some  one  must  bear  it, — it  is  the  latter 
side  that  is  made  prominent.  In  all  the  passages  it 
pleases  Jesus  to  speak  not  of  His  desire  to  die,  but  of 
the  burden  laid  on  Him,  and  the  power  given  to  others 
against  Him. 

2.  Had  the  doctrine  been  exi3lained  no  further, 
there  would  have  been  much  to  wait  for.  But  the 
series  of  announcements  in  these  passages  leads  up  to 
one  more  definite  and  complete.  It  cannot  be  denied 
(we  might  almost  say  that  before  Mr.  Jowett  it  never 
was  denied)  that  the  words  of  the  institution  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  speak  most  distinctly  of  a  sacrifice.  "  Drink 
ye  all  of  this,  for  this  is  My  blood  of  the  new  cov- 
enant," or,  to  follow  St.  Luke,  "  the  new  covenant  in 
My  blood."  "We  are  carried  back  by  these  words  to 
the  first  covenant,  to  the  altar  with  twelve  pillars,  and 
the  burnt-offerings  and  peace-offerings  of  oxen,  and  the 
blood  of  the  victims  sprinkled  on  the  altar  and  on  the 
people,  and  the  words  of  Moses  as  he  sprinkled  it : 
"Behold  the  blood  of  the  covenant  which  the  Lord 
hath  made  with  3^ou  concerning  all  these  words."^'  Ko 
interpreter  has  ever  failed  to  draw  from  these  passages 
the  true  meaning :  "  When  My  sacrifice  is  accom- 
plished, My  blood  shall  be  the  sanction  of  the  new  cov- 
enant." The  word  sacrifice  is  wanting ;  but  sacrifice 
and  nothing  else  is  described.  And  the  words  are  no 
mere  figure  used  for  illustration,  and  laid  aside  when 
they  have  served  that  turn,  "  Do  this  in  remembrance 
of  Me."  They  are  the  words  in  which  the  Church  is 
to  interpret  the  act  of  Jesus  to  the  end  of  time.  They 
are  reproduced  exactly  by  St.  Paul.f  Tlien,  as  now, 
Christians  met  together,  and  by  a  solemn  act  declared 
that  they  counted  the  blood  of  Jesus  as  a  sacrifice 
wherein  a  new  covenant  was  sealed  ;  and  of  the  blood 
of  that  sacrifice  they  partook  by  faith,  professing  them- 

*  Exod.  sxiv.  t  1  Cor.  xi.  '25. 


Essay  VIII.]  THE  DEATH  OF  CUEIST.  3(7^ 

selves  thereby  willing  to  enter  the  covenant  and  be 
sprinkled  with  the  blood. 

3.  So  far  we  have  examined  the  three  "  synoj^tic" 
Gospels.  They  follow  a  historical  order.  In  the  early 
chapters  of  all  three  the  doctrine  of  our  Lord's  sacrifice 
is  not  found,  because  He  will  first  answer  the  question 
about  Himself,  "  Who  is  this  ?  "  before  he  shows  them 
"  What  is  his  work  ? "  But  at  length  the  announce- 
ment is  made,  enforced,  repeated  ;  until,  when  the  feet 
of  the  betrayer  are  ready  for  their  wicked  errand,  a 
command  is  given  w^hich  secures  that  the  death  of 
Jesus  shall  be  described  for  ever  as  a  sacrifice  and 
nothing  else,  sealing  a  new  covenant,  and  carrying  good 
to  many.  Lest  the  doctrine  of  Atonement  should  seem 
to  be  an  afterthought,  as  indeed  De  Wette  has  tried  to 
represent  it,  St.  John  preserves  the  conversation  with 
Nicodemus,  wdiich  took  place  early  in  the  ministry ; 
and  there,  under  the  figure  of  the  brazen  serpent  lifted 
up,  the  atoning  virtue  of  the  Lord's  death  is  fully  set 
forth.  "  As  Moses  lifted  up  the  serpent  in  the  w^ilder- 
ness,  even  so  must  the  Son  of  Man  be  lifted  up ;  that 
whosoever  belicveth  in  Him  should  not  perish,  but 
have  eternal  life.""^  As  in  this  intercessory  act,  the 
image  of  the  deadly,  hateful,  and  accursed  f  reptile  be- 
came by  God's  decree  the  means  of  health  to  all  who 
looked  on  it  earnestly,  so  does  Jesus  in  the  form  of  sin- 
ful man,  of  a  deceiver  of  the  people,:]:  of  Antichrist,§  of 
one  accursed,!  become  the  means  of  our  salvation  ;  so 
that  whoever  fastens  the  earnest  gaze  of  faith  on  Him 
shall  not  perish,  but  have  eternal  life.  There  is  even 
a  significance  in  the  word  tipi,  which  in  older  Hebrew 
meant  to  lift  up  in  the  widest  sense,  but  began  in  the 
Aramaic  to  have  the  restricted  meaning  of  lifting  up 
for  punishment.^  With  Christ  the  lifting  up  was  a 
seeming  disgrace,  a  true  triumph  and  elevation:  But 
the  context  in  wdiich  these  verses  occur  is  as  important 

*  John  iii.  14,  15.  t  Gen.  iii.  14, 15. 

X  Matt,  xxvii.  63.  §  Matt.  xii.  24;  John  xviii.  33. 

J  Gal.  iii.  13. 

1"  So  Tholuck  and  Knapp,  *  Opuscula,'  p.  217.  The  treatise  of  Knapp  on 
this  discourse  is  valuable  throughout. 


380  -^I^S  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  YIII. 

as  tliG  verses  themselves.  Kicodemus  comes  as  an  in- 
quirer ;  lie  is  told  that  man  must  be  born  again,  and 
then  he  is  directed  to  the  death  of  Jesus  as  the  means 
of  that  regeneration.  The  earnest  gaze  of  the  wounded 
soul  is  to  be  the  condition  of  its  cure ;  and  that  gaze 
is  to  be  turned  not  to  Jesus  on  the  mountain,  or  in  the 
temple,  but  on  the  Cross.  This,  then,  is  no  passing  al- 
lusion, but  it  is  the  substance  of  the  Christian  teaching 
addressed  to  an  earnest  seeker  after  truth. 

Another  passage  claims  a  reverent  attention — "  If 
any  man  eat  of  this  bread  he  shall  live  for  ever,  and 
the  bread  that  I  will  give  is  My  flesh,  which  I  will 
give  for  the  life  of  the  world."  -  lie  is  the  bread  ;  and 
He  will  give  the  bread. f  If  His  presence  on  earth 
were  the  expected  food,  it  was  given  already ;  but 
w^ould  he  speak  of  "drinking  His  blood"  (ver.  53), 
which  can  only  refer  to  the  dead  ?  It  is  on  the  Cross 
tliat  He  will  afford  tliis  food  to  His  disciples.  We 
grant  that'  this  whole  passage  has  occasioned  as  much 
disputing  among  Christian  commentators  as  it  did 
among  the  Jews  who  heard  it ;  and  for  the  same  reason 
— for  the  hardness  of  the  saying.  But  there  stands  the 
saying  ;  and  no  candid  person  can  refuse  to  see  a  refer- 
ence in  it  to  the  death  of  Him  that  speaks. 

In  that  discourse,  which  has  well  been  called  the 
Prayer  of  Consecration  oftered  by  our  High  Priest, 
there  is  another  passage  which  cannot  be  alleged  as 
evidence  fo  one  who  thinks  that  any  word  applied  by 
Jesus  to  His  disciples  and  Himself  must  bear  in  both 
cases  precisely  the  same  sense,  but  which  is  really  per- 
tinent to  this  inquiry  : — "  Sanctify  them  throngh  Thy 
truth :  Thy  word  is  truth.  As  Thou  hast  sent  Me  into 
the  world,  even  so  have  I  also  sent  them  into  the 
world.  And  for  their  sakes  I  sanctify  Myself,  that  they 
also  might  be  sanctilied  through  the  truth. if     The  word 

*  John  vi.  51. 

t  Some,  omittincc  V  f'T"^  Swcco,  would  read.  "And  my  flesh  is  the  bread 
that  I  will  give  for  the  life  of  the  world."  So  Tcrtullian'seems  to  have  read 
"Panis  quem  ego  dodero  pro  salute  nuuidi  caro  mea  est."  The  .sense  is  the  same 
with  the  omission  ;  but  the  received  reading  may  be  successfully  defended. 

X  John  xviii.  17-iy. 


Essay  VIII.]  TUE  DEATH  OF  CHFwIST.  3gj 

dytd^eLv,  "sanctify,"  "consecrate,"  is  nsccl  in  the  Sep- 
tnagint  for  the  olfering  of  sacrifice,"  and  for  the  dedi- 
cation of  a  man  to  the  Divine  service. f  Here  tlie 
present  tense,"!  consecrate,"  used  in  a  discourse  in 
which  our  Lord  says  IJe  is  "  no  more  in  tlie  world,"  is 
conchisive  a^rainst  the  interpretation  "  I  dedicate  My 
I/fe  to  thee  ;"  for  life  is  over.  No  self-dedication, 
except  that  by  death,  can  now  be  spoken  of  as  present. 
"  I  dedicate  Myself  to  Thee,  in  My  death,  that  these 
may  be  a  people  consecrated  to  Thee  ;"  such  is  the 
great  thought  in  this  sublime  passage,  which  suits  well 
with  His  other  declaration,  that  the  blood  of  His  sacri- 
fice sprinkles  them  for  a  new  covenant  with  God.  To 
the  great  majority  of  expositors  from  Chrysostom  and 
Cyril,  the  doctrine  of  reconciliation  through  the  death 
of  Jesus  is  asserted  in  these  verses. 

The  Eedeemer  has  already  described  Himself  as  the 
Good  Shepherd  who  lays  down  His  life  for  the  sheep,'J: 
taking  care  to  distinguish  His  death  from  that  of  one 
who  dies  against  his  will  in  striving  to  compass  some 
other  aim  :  "  Therefore  doth  my  Father  love  Me,  be- 
cause I  lay  down  My  life  that  I  might  take  it  again. 
No  man  taketh  it  from  Me,  bnt  I  lay  it  down  of  My- 
self. I  have  power  to  lay  it  down,  and  I  have  power 
to  take  it  again." 

Other  passages  that  i-elate  to  His  death  will  occur 
to  the  memory  of  any  Bible  reader.  The  corn  of 
wheat  that  dies  in  the  ground  to  bear  much  fruit,§  is 
explained  by  His  own  words  elsewhere,  where  He  says 
that  He  came  "  to  minister,  and  to  give  His  life  as  a 
ransom  for  many."|| 

4.  Thus,  then,  speaks  Jesus  of  Himself.  "What  say 
His  witnesses  of  Him  ?  "  Behold  the  Lamb  of  God," 
says  the  Baptist,  "  which  taketh  away  the  sins  of  the 
world. "*^  Commentators  differ  about  the  allusions  im- 
plied in  that  name.  But  take  any  one  of  their  opinions, 
and  a  sacrifice  is  implied.  Is  it  the  Paschal  lamb  that 
is  referred  to?     Is  it  the  lamb  of  the  daily  sacrifice? 

*  Levit.  xxii.  2.  t  Numb.  iii.  15.  X  Jo^n  x-  11. 17,  18. 

§  John  X.  24.  I  Matt.  xx.  28.  H  John  i.  29. 


382  -^I^S  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  VIII. 

Either  way  the  death  of  the  victim  is  brought  before 
us.  But  the  alhision  in  all  probability  is  to  tlie  well- 
known  prophecy  of  Isaiah  (liii.),  to  the  Lamb  brought 
to  the  slaughter,  who  bore  our  griefs  and  carried  our 
sorrows.* 

5.  The  Apostles  after  the  Resurrection  preach  no 
moral  system,  but  a  belief  in  and  love  of  Christ,  the 
crucified  and  risen  Lord,  through  whom,  if  tliey  repent, 
men  shall  obtain  salvation.  This  was  Peter's  preach- 
ing on  the  day  of  Pentecost  ;t  and  he  appealed  boldly 
to  the  Prophets  on  the  ground  of  an  expectation  of  a 
suffering  Messiah.:}:  Philip  traced  out  for  the  Eunuch, 
in  that  picture  of  suffering  holiness  in  the  well-known 
chapter  of  Isaiah,  the  lineaments  of  Jesus  of  Naza- 
reth.§  The  first  sermon  to  a  Gentile  household  pro- 
claimed Christ  slain  and  risen,  and  added  "  that  through 
His  name  whosoever  believeth  in  Ilim  shall  receive 
remission  of  sins."||  Paul  at  Antioch  preaches  "  a 
Saviour  Jesus  ;"T"  "  through  this  Man  is  preached  unto 
you  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  and  by  Him  all  that  be- 
lieve are  justified  from  all  things  from  which  ye  could 
not  be  justified  by  the  law  of  "Moses."**  At  Thessa- 
lonica  all  that  we  learn  of  this  Apostle's  preaching  is 
"  that  Christ  must  needs  have  suffered  and  risen  again 
from  the  dead  :  and  this  Jesus,  whom  I  preach  unto 
you,  is  Christ."f  f  Before  Agrippa  he  declared  that  he 
had  preached  always  "  that  Christ  should  suffer,  and 
that  He  should  be  the  first  that  should  rise  from  the 
dead;":}::}:  and  it  was  this  declaration  that  convinced  his 
royal  hearer  that  he  w^as  a  crazed  fanatic.  The  ac- 
count of  the  first  founding  of  the  Church  in  the  Acts 

*  See  this  passage  discussed  fully  in  the  notes  of  Meyer,  Lange  (Blbfl- 
werke),  and  Alford.  The  reference  to  the  Paschal  Lamb  "finds  favour  with 
Grotius  and  others ;  the  reference  to  Isaiah  is  approved  by  Chrysostoni  and 
many  others.  The  taking  away  of  sin  (ofpet*/)  of  the  Baptist,  and  the  bear- 
ing it  {(pepeiv,  Sept.)  of  Isaiah,  have  one  meaning,  and  answer  to  the  Hebrew 
word  t<\!J3-  To  take  the  sins  on  himself  is  to  remove  them  from  the  sinners ; 
and  how  can  this  be  through  his  death  except  in  the  way  of  expiation  by  that 
death  itself? 

+  Acts  ii.  X  Acts  iii.  18. 

§  Acts  viii. ;  Isai.  liii.  \  Acts  x. 

H  Acts  xiii.  23.  **  Acts  xiii.  88,  SO. 

+t  Acts  xvii.  3.  XX  Acts  xxvi.  23. 


Essay  VIII.]  THE  DEATH  OF  CUEIST.  333 

of  the  Apostles  is  concise  and  fragmentary  ;  and  some- 
times we  have  hardly  any  means  of  judging  what  place 
the  sutferings  of  Jesus  held  in  the  teaching  of  the  Apos- 
tles ;  hut  when  we  read  that  they  "  preached  Jesus," 
or  the  like,  it  is  only  fair  to  infer  from  other  passages 
that  the  Cross  of  Christ  was  never  concealed,  whether 
Jews,  or  Greeks,  or  barbarians  were  the  listeners. 
And  this  very  pertinacity  shows  how  much  weight 
they  attached  to  the  facts  of  the  life  of  our  Lord. 
They  did  not  merely  repeat  in  each  new  place  the  pure 
morality  of  Jesus  as  He  uttered  it  in  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount :  of  such  lessons  we  have  no  record.  They 
took  in  their  hands,  as  the  strongest  weapon,  the  fact 
that  a  certain  Jew  crucified  afar  off  in  Jerusalem  was 
the  Son  of  God,  who  had  died  to  save  men  from  their 
sins  ;  and  they  offered  to  all  alike  an  interest,  through 
faith,  in  the  resurrection  from  the  dead  of  this  outcast 
of  His  own  people.  'No  wonder  that  Jews  and  Greeks, 
judging  in  their  worldly  way,  thought  this  strain  of 
preaching  came  of  folly  or  madness,  and  turned  from 
what  they  thought  unmeaning  jargon. 

6.  AVe  are  able  to  complete  from  the  Epistles  our 
account  of  the  teaching  of  the  Apostles  on  the  Doctrine 
of  Atonement.  ''  The  Man  Christ  Jesns  "  is  the  media- 
tor between  God  and  man,  for  in  Him  the  human  nature 
in  its  sinless  purity  is  lifted  up  to  the  Divine,  so  that 
He,  exempt  from  guilt,  can  plead  for  the  guilty.*  Thus 
He  is  the  second  Adam  that  shall  redeem  the  sin  of  the 
first ;  the  interest  of  men  are  bound  up  in  Him,  since 
He  has  power  to  take  them  all  into  Himself. f  This 
salvation  was  provided  by  the  Father,  to  "  reconcile  us 
to  Himself ;":}:  to  whom  the  name  of  "Saviour"  thus 
belongs  ;§  and  our  redemption  is  a  signal  proof  of  the 
love  of  God  to  us.||  Not  less  is  it  a  proof  of  the  love 
of  Jesus,  since  He  freely  lays  down  His  life  for  us — 
offers  it  as  a  precious  gift,  capable  of  purchasing  all 
the  lost.^     But  there  is  another  side  of  the  truth  more 

*  1  Tim.  ii.  5;  1  John.  ii.  1,  2;  Eeb.  vii.  2a. 

t  Eph.  V.  29,  SO;  Rom.  xii.  5;  1  Cor.  xv.  22;  Rom.  v.  12,  17. 

X  2  Cor.  V.  18.  §  Luke  i.  47.  ||  1  John  iv.  10. 

TI  1  Tim.  ii.  G ;  Tit.  ii.  U ;  Eph.  i.  7.    Compare  Matt.  xx.  28. 


384  ^1^3  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  VIIL 

painful  to  our  natural  reason.  How  came  this  exhibi- 
tion of  Divine  love  to  be  needed  ?  Because  VvTath  had 
already  gone  out  against  man.  The  clouds  of  God's 
anger  gathered  thick  over  the  whole  human  race  ;  they 
discliarged  themselves  on  Jesus  only.  God  has  made 
Him  to  be  sin  for  us  who  knew  no  sin.*  He  is  made 
"  a  curse  "  (a  thing  accursed)  for  ns,  that  the  curse  that 
hangs  over  us  may  be  removed.f  He  bore  our  sins  in 
His  own  body  on  the  tree. J  There  are  those  who 
would  see  on  the  page  of  the  Bible  only  the  sunshine 
of  the  Divine  love  ;  but  the  muttering  thunders  of 
Divine  wrath  against  sin  are  heard  there  also  :  and  He 
who  alone  was  no  child  of  wrath,  meets  the  shock  of 
the  thunderstorm,  becomes  a  curse  for  us,  and  a  vessel 
of  wrath ;  and  the  rays  of  love  break  out  of  that  thun- 
der-gloom and  shine  on  the  bowed  head  of  Him  who 
hangs  on  the  Cross,  dead  for  our  sins. 

We  have  spoken,  and  advisedly,  as  if  the  New 
Testament  were,  as  to  tliis  doctrine,  one  book  in  har- 
mony with  itself.  That  there  are  in  the  Xew  Testa- 
ment difierent  types  of  the  one  true  doctrine,  may  be 
admitted  without  peril  to  the  doctrine.  The  princij^al 
types  are  four  in  number.^ 

7.  In  the  Epistle  of  James  there  is  a  remarkable 
absence  of  all  explanations  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Atone- 
ment. But  this  admission  does  not  amount  to  so  much 
as  may  at  first  appear.  True,  the  key-note  of  the  Ej^is- 
tle  is  that  the  Gospel  is  the  Law  made  perfect,  and  that 
it  is  a  practical  moral  system,  in  which  man  finds  him- 
self free  to  keep  the  Divine  law.  But  with  him  Christ 
is  no  mere  lawgiver  appointed  to  impart  the  Jewish 
system.  He  knows  that  Ehas  is  a  man  like  himself; 
but  of  the  Person  of  Christ  he  speaks  in  a  different 
spirit.  He  calls  himself  "  a  servant  of  God  and  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  who  is  "  the  Lord  of  Glory."  He 
speaks  of  the  Word  of  Truth,  of  which  Jesus  has  been 
the  utterer.  He  knows  that  laith  in  the  Lord  of  Glory 
is  inconsistent  with  time-serving  and  "  respect  of  pcr- 

*  2  Cor.  V.  21.  t  Gal.  iii.  13.  %  1  Pot.  ii.  21. 


Essay  VIII.]  THE  DEATH  OF  CHPJST.  055 

sons." '-'  "  There  is  one  lawgiver,"  he  says,  "  who  is 
able  to  save  and  to  destroy  ;  "  f  and  this  refers  no  douht 
to  Jesus,  whose  second  coming  he  holds  np  as  a  motive 
to  obedience.  :j:  These  and  like  expressions  remove  this 
Epistle  far  out  of  the  sj)here  of  Ebionitish  teaching. 
Tlie  inspired  writer  sees  the  Saviour,  in  the  Father's 
glory,  preparing  to  return  to  judge  the  quick  and  dead. 
He  puts  forth  Christ  as  Prophet  and  King,  for  he  makes 
llini  teacher  and  judge  of  the  world  ;  but  the  office  of 
the  Priest  he  does  not  dwell  on.  Far  be  it  from  us  to 
say  that  he  knows  it  not.  Something  must  have  taken 
place  before  lie  could  treat  them  with  confidence,  as 
free  creatures,  able  to  resist  temptations,  and  even  to 
meet  temptations  with  jo3^  lie  treats  "  your  faith  "  as 
something  founded  already,  not  to  be  prepared  by  this 
epistle.  §  His  purpose  is  a  purely  practical  one.  There 
is  no  intention  to  unfold  a  Christology,  such  as  that 
which  makes  the  Epistle  to  the  Pomans  so  valuable. 
Assuming  that  Jesus  has  manifested  Himself,  and 
begotten  anew  the  human  race,  he  seeks  to  make  them 
pray  with  undivided  hearts,  and  be  considerate  to  the 
poor,  and  strive  with  lusts,  for  which  they  and  not  God 
are  responsible ;  and  bridle  their  tongues,  and  show 
their  fruits  by  their  works.  || 

8.  In  the"  teaching  of  St.  Peter  the  doctrine  of  the 
Person  of  our  Lord  is  connected  strictly  with  that  of 
His  work  as  Saviour  and  Messiah.  The  frequent  men- 
tion of  His  sufferings  shows  the  prominent  place  he 
would  give  them ;  and  he  puts  forward  as  the  ground 
of  his  own  right  to  teach,  that  he  was  "  a  witness  of  the 
sufferings  of  Christ."  ^f  The  atoning  virtue  of  those 
sufferings  he  dwells  on  with  peculiar  emphasis;  and 
not  less  so  on  the  purifying  influence  of  the  Atonement 
on  the  hearts  of  believers.  He  repeats  again  and  again 
that  Christ  died  for  us ;  -"^  that  He  bare  our  sins  in'llis 

*  Jjvmcs  i.  1,  ii.  1,  i.  IS.  +  James  iv.  12. 

X  James  v.  7-1*.  §  James  i.  2,  3,  21. 

\  See  Neander,  'Pflanzun^,'  b.  vi.  c.  C;  Schmid,  'Theologic  dcr  N.  T.,' 
part  ii. ;  and  Doruer,  '  Cbristologie,'  vol.  i.  p.  0."). 

1[  1  Pet.  y.  1.  **  1  Pet.  ii.  21^  III  18,  iv.  1. 

17 


386  AIDS  TO  FAITU.  [Essay  Till. 

own  body  on  tlie  tree.  -  lie  bare  them  ;  and  what 
does  this  phrase  suggest,  but  the  goat  that  "  shall  bear  " 
the  iniquities  of  the  people  oft*  into  the  land  that  was 
not  inhabited  ?  f  or  else  the  feeling  the  consequences  of 
sin,  as  the  word  is  used  elsewhere  %  %  ^^  have  to 
choose  between  the  cognate  ideas  of  sacrifice  and  sub- 
stitution. Closely  connected  w^ith  these  statements  are 
those  which  connect  moral  reformation  with  the  death 
of  Jesus.  He  bare  our  sins  that  we  might  live  unto 
righteousness.  His  death  is  our  life.  We  are  not  to 
be  content  with  a  self-satisfied  contemplation  of  our 
redeemed  state,  but  to  live  a  life  worthy  of  it.  §  In 
these  passages  the  whole  Gospel  is  contained ;  we  are 
justified  by  the  death  of  Jesus,  who  bore  our  sins  that 
w^e  might  be  sanctified  and  renewed  to  a  life  of  godli- 
ness. And  from  this  Apostle  we  hear  again  the  name 
of  "  the  Lamb,"  as  well  as  from  John  the  Baptist ;  and 
the  passage  of  Isaiah  comes  back  upon  us  with  unmis- 
takable clearness.  We  are  redeemed  "  with  the  pre- 
cious blood  of  Christ  as  of  a  lamb  without  blemish  and 
without  spot."  II  Every  word  carries  us  back  to  the 
Old  Testament  and  its  sacrificial  system :  the  spotless 
victim,  the  release  from  sin  by  its  blood  (elsewhere,  i. 
2,  by  the  sjyrinJdmg  of  its  blood),  are  here ;  not  the  type 
and  shadow,  but  the  truth  of  them ;  not  a  ceremonial 
purgation,  but  an  cftectual  reconcilement  of  man  and 
God. 

9.  In  the  inspired  writings  of  John  we  are  struck  at 
once  with  the  emphatic  statements  as  to  the  Divine 
and  human  natures  of  Christ.  A  right  belief  in  the 
incarnation  is  the  test  of  a  Christian  man ;  ^  we  must 
believe  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  fiesh,  and  that 
He  is  manifested  to  destroy  the  works  of  the  devil.  ** 
And,  on  the  other  hand,  He  who  has  come  in  the  flesh 
is  the  One  who  alone  has  been  in  the  bosom  of  the 

*  1  Pet.  ii.  24.  If  there  were  anv  doubt  that  "  for  us"  (uirep  i)ixuv)  means 
"  in  our  .stead"  (sec  verse  21),  tliis'  24th  verse,  which  explains  the  former, 
would  set  it  at  rest.  t  Lev.  xvi.  22.  X  Lev.  xx.  17,  I'J. 

§  1  Pet.  ii.  21-25,  iii.  15-18. 

i  1  Pet.  i.  IS,  lU,  with  Isaiah  liii.  7. 

\\   1  John  iv.  2;  John  i.  14;  2  John  7.         **  1  John  iii.  8. 


Essay  YIII.]  THE  DEATH  OF  CUEIST.  3gY 

Father,  seen  tlie  tilings  that  human  ej'cs  liave  never 
seen,  and  has  come  to  declare  them  unto  us.  *  This 
Person,  at  once  divine  and  human,  is  "  the  propitiation 
for  our  sins,"  our  "  advocate  with  the  Father,'*  sent 
into  the  world  "  that  we  might  live  through  him  ;  "  and 
tlie  means  w^as  His  laying  down  His  life  for  us,  wliich 
should  make  us  ready  to  lay  down  our  lives  for  the 
brethren,  f  And  the  moral  effect  of  His  redemj^tion 
is,  that  "  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  cleanseth  us  from 
all  sin."  J  The  intimate  connection  between  His  work 
and  our  holiness  is  the  main  subject  of  his  first  Ejnstle  : 
"  Whosoever  is  born  of  God  doth  not  commit  sin."  § 
As  with  St.  Peter  so  with  St.  John,  every  point  of  tlie 
doctrine  of  the  Atonement  comes  out  with  abundant 
clearness.  The  substitution  of  another  w^ho  can  bear 
our  sins,  for  us  who  cannot;  the  sufferings  and  death 
as  the  means  of  our  redemption,  our  justification  there- 
by, and  our  progress  in  holiness  as  the  result  of  our 
justification. 

10.  To  follow  out  as  fully  in  the  more  voluminous 
writings  of  St.  Paul  the  passages  that  speak  of  our 
salvation  w^ould  far  transgress  the  limits  of  our  space. 
Man,  according  to  this  Apostle,  is  a  transgressor  of  the 
law.  His  conscience  tells  him  that  he  cannot  act  up 
to  that  law  which,  the  same  conscience  admits,  is  divine, 
and  binding  upon  him.  Through  the  old  dispensations 
man  remained  in  this  condition.  Even  the  law  of 
Moses  could  not  justify  him  :  it  only  by  its  strict 
behests  held  up  a  mirror  to  conscience  that  its  frailness 
might  be  seen.  Christ  came,  sent  by  the  mercy  of  our 
Father  who  had  never  forgotten  us ;  given  to,  not 
deserved  by  us.  He  came  to  reconcile  men  and  God, 
by  dying  on  the  Cross  for  them  and  bearing  their 
punishment  in  their  stead.  ||  He  is  "  a  propitiation 
through  faith  in  his  blood :  "  T"  words  which  most  pco- 

*  1  John  i.  2,  iv.  14;  John  i.  14-18. 

t  1  John  ii.  1,  2,  iv.  9,  10,  v.  11-13,  iii.  IG,  v.  C,  i.  7;  John  xi.  51. 

X  1  John  i.  7.  §  1  John  iii.  9. 

II  2  Cor.  V.  14-21 ;  Rom.  v.  6-8.  These  two  passages  are  decisive  as  to 
the  fact  of  substitution ;  they  might  be  fortified  with  many  others. 

^  Kom.  iii.  25,  26.  Compare  Lcvit.  xvi.  15.  '\\a(ni]piov  means  "victim 
for  expiation." 


338  AIDS  TO  FAITU.  [Essay  YIII. 

pie  will  find  iinintelliglble  except  in  reference  to  the 
Old  Testament  and  its  sacrifices.  He  is  the  ransom,  or 
price  paid,  for  the  redemption  of  man  from  all  iniquity.* 
The  wrath  of  God  was  against  man  ;  but  it  did.  not  fall 
on  man.  God  made  His  Son  ''  to  be  sin  for  us  "  though 
He  knew  no  sin  ;  and  Jesus  suffered  though  men  had 
sinned.  By  this  act  God  and  man  were  reconciled,  f 
On  the  side  of  man  trust  and  love  and  hope  take  the 
place  of  fear  and  of  an  evil  conscience  ;  on  the  side  of 
God,  that  terrible  wrath  of  His,  which  is  revealed  from 
heaven  against  all  ungodliness  and  unrighteousness  of 
men,  is  turned  away.  ^  The  question  whether  we  are 
reconciled  to  God  only,  or  God  is  also  reconciled  to  us, 
might  be  discussed  on  deep  metaphysical  grounds ;  but 
we  purposely  leave  that  on  one  side  at  j)resent,  content 
to  show  that  at  all  events  the  intention  of  God  to  punish 
man  is  averted  by  this  "  propitiation"  and  "  reconcile- 
ment." 

11.  Different  views  are  held  about  the  authorship 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  by  modern  critics.  But 
its  numerous  points  of  contact  with  the  other  Epistles 
of  St.  Paul  must  be  recognized.  In  both,  the  incom- 
pleteness of  Judaism  is  dwelt  on  ;  redemption  from  sin 
and  guilt  is  what  religion  has  to  do  for  men,  and  this 
the  law  failed  to  secure.  In  both,  reconciliation  and 
forgiveness  and  a  new  moral  j)Ower  in  the  believers  are 
the  fruits  of  the  work  of  Jesus.  In  the  Epistle  to  the 
Eomans,  Paul  shows  that  the  Law  failed  to  justify ; 
and  that  faith  in  the  blood  of  Jesus  must  be  the  ground 
of  justitication.  In  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  the 
same  result  follows  from  an  argument  rather  different : 
all  that  the  Jewish  system  aimed  to  do  is  accomplished 
in  Christ  in  a  far  more  perfect  manner.  The  Gospel 
has  a  better  Priest,  more  effectual  sacrifices,  a  more 
profound  peace.  In  the  one  Epistle  the  Law  seems  set 
aside  wdiolly  for  the  system  of  faith  ;  in  the  other  tlie 
Law  is  exalted  and  glorified  in  its  Gospel  shape.     But 

*  Titus  ii.  14.     Still  stronger  in  1  Tim.  ii.  6,  "ransom  instead  of"  (a>T^ 
Kvrpov).     Also  Eph.  i.  7  (ctTroAuTpcoo-Js) ;  1  Cor.  v.  20,  vii.  23. 
+  Rom.  V.  10;  2  Cor.  v.  18-20;  Eph.  ii.  IG;  Col.  i.  21. 
X  Rom.  1.  18,  Y.  9 ;  1  Thes.  i.  10. 


Essay  VIII.]  THE  DEATH  OF  CHRIST.  339 

the  aim  is  precisely  the  same,  to  show  the  weakness  of 
the  Law  and  tlie  efFectual  fruit  of  the  GospeL 

12.  We  arc  now  in  a  position  to  see  how  far  the 
teaching  of  the  Kew  Testament  on  the  effects  of  tlie 
death  of  Jesus  is  continuous  and  consistent.  Are  the 
declarations  of  our  Lord  about  Himself  the  same  as 
those  of  James  and  Peter,  John  and  Paul  ?  and  are 
those  of  the  Apostles  consistent  with  each  other  ?  The 
several  points  of  this  mysterious  transaction  may  be 
thus  roughly  described  : — 

1.  God  sent  His  Son  into  the  world  to  redeem  lost 
and  ruined  man  from  sin  and  death,  and  the  Son  will- 
ingly took  upon  Him  the  form  of  a  servant  for  this 
purpose ;  and  thus  the  Father  and  the  Son  manifested 
their  love  for  us. 

2.  God  the  Father  laid  upon  His  Son  the  weight 
of  the  sins  of  the  whole  w^orld,  so  that  He  bare  in  His 
own  body  the  wrath  which  men  must  else  have  borne, 
because  there  was  no  other  way  of  escape  for  them ; 
and  thus  the  Atonement  was  a  manifestation  of  Divine 
justice. 

3.  Tlie  effect  of  the  Atonement  thus  wrought  is,  that 
man  is  placed  in  a  new  position,  freed  from  the  domin- 
ion of  sin,  and  able  to  follow  holiness  ;  and  thus  the 
doctrine  of  the  Atonement  ought  to  work  in  all  the 
hearers  a  sense  of  love,  of  obedience,  and  of  self-sac- 
rifice. 

In  shorter  words,  the  sacrifice  of  the  death  of  Christ 
is  a  proof  of  Divine  love  and  of  Divine  justice^  and  is 
for  us  a  document  of  obedience. 

Of  the  four  great  writers  of  the  New  Testament, 
Peter,  Paul,  and  John  set  forth  every  one  of  these 
points.  Peter,  the  "  witness  of  the  suflerings  of  Christ," 
tells  us  that  wo  are  redeemed  with  the  blood  of  Jesus, 
as  of  a  lamb  w^ithout  blemish  and  without  spot ;  says 
that  Christ  bare  our  sins  in  His  o^vn  body  on  the  tree. 
If  we  "  have  tasted  that  the  Lord  is  gracious,"'^'  we 
must  not  rest  satisfied  with  a  contemplation  of  our  re- 
deemed state,  but  must  live  a  life  worthy  of  it.  No 
*  1  Pet.  ii.  3. 


390  ^IDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  YIII. 

one  can  well  doubt,  wlio  reads  tlic  two  Epistles,  that 
the  love  of  God  and  Christ,  and  the  justice  of  God,  and 
the  duties  tliereby  laid  on  us,  all  have  their  value  in 
them ;  but  the  love  is  less  dwelt  on  than  the  justice, 
whilst  the  most  prominent  idea  of  all  is  the  moral  and 
practical  working  of  the  Cross  of  Christ  upon  the  lives 
of  men. 

"With  St.  John,  again,  all  three  points  iind  place. 
That  Jesus  willingly  laid  down  His  life  for  us,  and  is 
an  advocate  with  the  Father  ;  that  He  is  also  the  pro- 
pitiation, the  suffering  sacrifice  for  our  sins ;  and  that 
the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  cleanseth  us  from  all  sin,  for 
that  whoever  is  born  of  God  doth  not  commit  sin  ;  all  are 
put  forward.  The  death  of  Christ  is  both  justice  and 
love,  both  a  propitiation  and  an  act  of  loving  self-sur- 
render ;  but  the  moral  effect  upon  us  is  more  promi- 
nent even  than  these. 

In  the  Epistles  of  Paul  the  three  elements  are  all 
present.  In  such  expressions  as  a  ransom,  a  propitia- 
tion, who  was  "  made  sin  for  us,"  the  wrath  of  God 
against  sin,  and  the  mode  in  which  it  was  turned  away, 
are  presented  to  us.  Yet  not  wrath  alone.  "  The  love 
of  Christ  constraineth  us  ;  because  we  thus  judge,  that 
if  one  died  for  all,  then  were  all  dead  :  and  that  He 
died  for  all,  that, they  which  live  should  not  henceforth 
live  unto  themselves,  but  unto  Him  which  died  for  them, 
and  rose  again."*  Love  in  Him  begets  love  in  us,  and 
in  our  reconciled  state  the  holiness  which  we  could  not 
practise  before  becomes  easy. 

The  reasons  for  not  finding  from  St.  James  similar 
evidence,  we  have  spoken  of  already. 

Now  in  which  of  these  points  is  there  the  semblance 
of  contradiction  between  the  Apostles  and  their  Master  ? 
In  none  of  them.  In  the  Gospels,  as  in  the  Epistles, 
Jesus  is  held  up  as  the  sacrifice  and  victim,  quaffing  a 
cup  from  which  His  human  nature  shrank,  feeling  in 
Him  a  sense  of  desolation  such  as  we  fail  utterly  to 
comprehend  on  a  theory  of  human  motives.  Yet  no 
one  takes  from  Him  His  precious  redeeming  life ;  He 

*  2  Cor.  V.  14, 15. 


Essay  VIIL]  THE  DEJlTII  OF  CnrwIST.  39]^ 

lays  it  down  of  Himself,  out  of  His  great  love  for  men. 
But  men  are  to  deny  themselves,  and  take  up  their 
cross  and  tread  in  His  steps.  They  are  His  friends  only 
if  they  keep  His  commands  and  follow  His  footsteps. 

H.  We  must  consider  it  proved  that  these  three 
points  or  moments  arc  the  doctrine  of  the  whole  J^ew 
Testament.  What  is  there  about  this  teaching  that 
has  provoked  in  times  past  and  present  so  much  dispu- 
tation ?  Not,  I  am  persuaded,  the  hardness  of  the  doc- 
trine,— for  none  of  the  theories  put  in  its  place  are  any 
easier, — but  its  want  of  logical  completeness.  Sketched 
out  for  us  in  a  few  broad  lines,  it  tempts  the  fancy  to 
fill  it  in  and  lend  it  colour  ;  and  we  do  not  always  re- 
member that  the  hands  that  attempt  this  are  trying  to 
make  a  mystery  into  a  theory,  an  infinite  truth  into  a 
finite  one,  and  to  reduce  the  great  things  of  God  into 
the  narrow  limits  of  our  little  field  of  view.  To  whom 
was  the  ransom  paid  ?  "What  was  Satan's  share  of  the 
transaction  ?  Hoav  can  one  sufi'er  for  another  ?  Hov/ 
could  the  Redeemer  be  miserable  when  He  was  con- 
scious that  His  w^ork  was  one  which  could  bring  happi- 
ness to  the  whole  human  race  ?  Yet  this  condition  of 
indefiniteness  is  one  which  is  imposed  on  us  in  the  re- 
ception of  every  mystery  :  prayer,  the  incarnation,  the 
immortality  of  the  soul,  are  all  subjects  that  pass  far 
beyond  our  range  of  thought.  And  here  we  see  the 
wisdom  of  God  in  connecting  so  closely  our  redemp- 
tion with  our  reformation.  If  the  object  were  to  give 
us  a  complete  theory  of  salvation,  no  doubt  there  would 
be  in  the  Bible  much  to  seek.  The  theory  is  gathered 
by  fragments  out  of  many  an  exhortation  and  warning ; 
nowhere  does  it  stand  out  entire,  and  without  logical 
flaw.  But  if  we  assume  that  the  New  Testament  is 
written  for  the  guidance  of  sinful  hearts,  we  find  a 
wonderful  aptness  for  that  particular  end.  Jesus  is 
j)roclaimed  as  the  solace  of  our  fears,  as  the  founder 
of  our  moral  life,  as  the  restorer  of  our  lost  relation 
with  our  Father.  If  He  had  a  cross,  there  is  a  cross 
for  us ;  if  He  pleased  not  Himself,  let  us  deny  our- 


392  -^II^S  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  Till, 

selves ;  if  lie  suffered  for  sin,  let  us  hate  sin/'^  And 
the  question  ought  not  to  be,  AVliat  do  all  these  mys- 
teries mean?  but,  Are  these  thoughts  really  such  as 
will  serve  to  guide  our  life  and  to  assuage  our  terrors 
in  the  hour  of  death  ?  The  answer  is  twofold — one 
Irom  history  and  one  from  experience.  The  preaching 
of  the  Cross  of  the  Lord  even  in  this  simple  fashion 
converted  the  world.  The  same  doctrine  is  now  the 
ground  of  any  definite  hope  that  we  find  in  ourselves, 
of  forgiveness  of  sins  and  of  everlasting  life. 

Now,  in  examining  the  history  of  the  Doctrine  we 
shall  expect  to  find,  as  in  the  case  of  other  doctrines, 
that  attempts  have  been  made  to  force  from  Scripture 
a  clearer  and  more  definite  statement  than  is  found 
there  at  first  sight.  We  should  also  expect  that  these 
attempts  at  greater  precision  had  been  accompanied 
often,  if  not  always,  with  the  loss  of  some  element  on 
which  the  Bible  insists. 

But  we  are  told  at  the  outset  that  the  position 
which  this  doctrine  holds  in  the  history  of  early  con- 
troversies is  far  from  being  so  prominent  as  that  which 
we  assign  it  now.  The  answer  is,  that  in  the  first  ages 
the  disputes  which  prevailed  about  the  Person  of  Jesus 
superseded  the  discussion  of  the  Atonement,  because 
they  contained  and  implied  it.  3Iore  than  once,  when 
the  ostensible  argument  was  the  nature  of  the  Ke- 
deemer,  Athanasius  insisted  that  if  the  Son  of  God  had 
been  such  a  one  as  Arians  and  Sabellians  dreamed  of, 
lie  could  not  have  redeemed  the  world.  IIow  could 
a  man  who  was  only  one  among  other  men  have  power 
to  redeem  them  all"?  It  needed  the  Son  of  God,  who 
had  power  over   all   men,   to   redeem  them.f      And 

*  Pages  might  be  filled  with  examples  of  this,  and  jet  Mr.  Garden 
('Tracts  for  Priests  and  People,'  iii.  p.  4)  starts  back  from  one  of  them  as 
Crusoe  did  from  the  footprint  in  the  sand.  "In  1  Pet.  i.  18,  "vve  have  an  im- 
pressive sentence,  which  we  read  on  in  our  habitual  key  of  thought,  but  arc 
surprised  to  find  that  it  does  not  end  on  the  key-note : — *  Forasmuch  as  ye 
know  that  ye  were  not  redeemed  with  corruptible  things,  as  silver  and  gold, 
from  [it  is  here  that  modern  cars  and  thoughts  will  anticipate  a  different  end- 
ing] your  vain  conversation  received  by  tradition  from  your  fathers.'  "  This 
is  the  usual  key-note  of  Scripture,  but  not  the  only  note.  The  same  Epistle 
speaks  of  redemption  from  wrath  and  eternal  death  (1  I'ct.  i.  5,  ii.  10,  iv. 
17,  18). 

t  Cent.  Arian.  i.  §  40.    Comp.  i.  |§  10,  37,  ii.  §  14,  20. 


Essay  VIII.]  THE  DEATH  OF  CIIPJST.  393 

Arians,  conscious  of  tins,  rested  the  redemption  of  men, 
not  on  any  power  inherent  in  the  Saviour  s  nature,  but 
on  the  simple  declaration  of  God  that  the  curse  was 
removed.*  Cyril  objects  to  IS'estorius  that  his  doctrine 
makes  the  Atonement  meaningless,  for  it  refers  it,  not 
to  one  who  is  God  and  man,  but  to  a  man,  whose  rela- 
tion to  God  the  Word  is  only  external.f  When  the 
whole  doctrme  of  the  Person  of  Christ  w^as  the  subject 
of  searching  controversy,  the '  doctrine  of  Atonement 
did  not  emerge  as  the  subject  of  a  separate  dispute ; 
but  we  may  be  sure  that  it  was  never  far  off.  And 
it  may  be  that  this  is  the  clue  to  our  i:)resent  discus- 
sions about  the  Atonement.  As  of  old  it  was  involved 
in  another  controversy,  so  now  the  subject  of  that  other 
controversy  is  involved  in  this ;  and  when  we  are  in- 
vited to  discuss  whether  one  man  can  ever  bear  the 
sins  of  another,  and  whether  vicarious  punishment 
could  ever  be  agreeable  to  God's  justice,  we  cannot 
but  notice  that  the  divine  nature  of  Christ  is  never 
stwngly  asserted  on  that  side,  or  assumed  as  an  ele- 
ment in  the  argument.  The  death  of  Jesus  is  dis- 
cussed as  the  death  of  a  mere  man.  The  most  incau- 
tious rhetorical  flights  of  orthodox  sermons  are  selected 
for  assault,  in  which  a  substitution  of  the  innocent  for 
the  guilty  is  spoken  of  under  the  forms  and  phrases  of 
human  law,  in  the  very  points  where  human  law  is  not 
applicable  ;  and  the  more  deliberate  expositions  of  faith 
are  put  on  one  side.  We  are  accused  of  making  that 
the  corner-stone  of  the  Christian  faith  which  no  creed 
fully  defines.  The  necessity  of  our  position  compels 
us  to  make  the  Atonement  prominent.  But  all  the 
faith  is  involved  in  the  discussion.  When  the  views 
of  Socinus  on  the  Atonement  are  brought  forth  again, 
his  notions  as  to  the  Eedcemer's  person  are  probably 
not  far  off. 

In  modem*writers  who  have  touched  the  subject,  an 
undue  prominence  is  given  to  one  feature  of  the  patristic 
teaching,  the  notion  that  the  ransom  paid  by  our  Lord 
was  paid   to  the  Devil,  into  whose  power  man  h.ad 

*  Cont.  Aiiun.  ii.  §  G«.  %  Adv.  Ncstorius,  111.  2. 

17^ 


gg^  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  VIII. 

passed  through  siii.''^  Thus  what  is  for  the  most  part 
rhetorical  plliyiug  with  words,  is  put  forward  as  if  it 
were  the  sole  and  the  serious  belief  of  these  writers. 
The  story  bears  a  very  different  telling.  There  is  not 
space  for  it  here ;  but  a  few  quotations  may  be  useful. 
The  old  Epistle  to  Diognetus  f  tells  how  God  gave  His 
Son  a  ransom  for  us ;  and  we  are  to  rejoice  that  the 
Holy  One  died  for  the  evil-doers,  the  sinless  for  the 
sinful ;  for  what  was  there,  short  of  His  righteousness, 
that  would  cover  our  sins  ?  Clement  of  Home  if  sees 
the  truth  not  less  clearly.  According  to  Ignatius,  §  we 
owe  our  salvation  to  Christ  crucified  for  us  in  the  flesii, 
and  to  His  "God-blessed  passion."  To  the  Jewish 
objection  that  the  cross  is  accursed,  and  therefore  un- 
worthy of  Messiah,  Justin  Martyr  retorts  tliat  this  is 
matter  for  those  to  be  ashamed  of  who  inflicted  the 
death,  wdien  the  Father  of  all  had  "willed  that  His 
Christ  should  take  the  curses  of  all  for  the  whole  race 
of  man,  knowing  that  He  would  raise  Him  up  after  He 
had  been  crucified  and  put  to  death."  ||  By  Irenreus 
the  Scriptural  accounts  of  the  Redemption  are  promi- 
nently put  forward.'  As  a  man  caused  the  fall,  a  man 
must  cause  the  restoration  ;  he  must  be  a  man  able  to 
sum  U2?  {recajntulare)  all  the  human  species  in  himself, 
so  as  to  bear  the  punishment  of  all,  and  to  render  an 
obedience  that  wdll  compensate  for  their  innumerable 
acts  of  disobedience.  It  suits  not  with  the  Divine  nature 
to  effect  His  w^ill  by  force,  but  rather  by  love  and  influ- 
ence ;  hence  came  the  voluntary  self-sacrifice,  out  of 
exceeding  love,  of  the  divine  Son  of  Man,  who  is  truly 
God  and  man  ;  and  hence  too  men  are  not  dragged,  but 
drawn  back  to  God  from  sin,  embracing  by  an  act  of 
their  will  the  ofi'ers  of  mercy  made  them  through  Christ. 
But,  combined  with  these  statements,  there  are  indica- 
tions at  least  of  the  idea  that  Christ  died  to  redeem  men 
from  a  real  objective  power  which  Satan*had  acquired 
over  them,  so  that  the  redeeming  price  was  paid,  not  so 

*  Professor  Jowett,  ii.  572.  Mr.  Gardner  (p.  4)  devotes  seventeen  lines 
to  the  subject  of  the  Fathers,  and  this  theory  occupies  the  whole  of  them ;  as 
if  there  were  no  other  opinions  worth  mentioning. 

t  Ch.  ix.  X  Ch.  1.  §  Ad  Smyrn.  ch.  i.  \  Dial.  Trypb.,§  95. 


Essay  VIII.]  THE  DEATH  OF  CUEIST.  395 

much  by  way  of  debt  clue  to  the  righteousness  and  jus- 
tice of  God,  as  by  way  of  ransom  to  release  them  from 
a  conqueror,  and  to  restore  them  to  God,  to  whom  they 
originally  belonged.  '*  Since,"  says  he,  "  the  apostasy 
[the  Devil]  unjustly  got  the  dominion  over  us,  and, 
though  we  belonged  by  nature  to  the  omnipotent  God, 
alienated  us  against  nature  and  made  us  his  own  disci- 
ples, the  Word  of  God  [Christ],  powerful  in  all  things 
and  perfect  in  justice,  acted  justly  in  regard  to  the 
apostasy  [the  Devil],  redeeming  from  it  that  which  was 
His  own  ;  not  by  force,  in  the  way  that  it  got  dominion 
over  us  in  the  beginning,  when  it  carried  ofl'  insatiably 
that  which  belonged  not  to  it,  but  by  persuasion  {secun- 
dum suadelam)^  as  it  became  God  to  receive  what  He 
would,  by  the  use  of  persuasion,  not  of  force,  that  justice 
should  not  be  infringed,  nor  yet  that  which  God  created 
of  old  should  perish""  '^  Some  have  supposed  that  the 
words  "  by  persuasion  "  mean  by  a  way  which  the  Devil 
himself  must  be  convinced  was  right  and  reasonable, 
but  this  would  be  strangely  inconsistent  with  the  general 
views  of  the  writer.  The  apostate  spirit,  as  he  says  in 
another  place,  persuaded  men  to  transgress,  but  he  used 
fraud  and  wrong  to  compass  his  purpose;  and  here 
Irenoeus  contrasts  with  this  false  persuasion,  which  he 
calls  force  and  injustice,  the  lair  and  just  persuasion  by 
which  the  Son  of  Man,  who  has  been  lifted  up,  draws 
all  men  back  to  Him.  The  persuasion  is  addressed  to 
lost  men,  and  not  to  Satan.  With  Irenaius  the  redemp- 
tion was  not  a  friendly  treaty  between  two  powers  for 
the  release  of  prisoners ;  he  says  that  Christ  contended 
with,  repulsed,  conquered,  despoiled,  and  bound  the 
enemy  of  God  and  man.  Tlie  point  on  which  he  lays 
most  stress  is  certainly  not  the  power  which  Satan  has 
acquired,  but  the  power  that  belongs  inherently  to  our 
Redeemer  of  summing  up  in  Himself  the  interests  of 
the  whole  human  race.  lie  sees  that  to  offer  a  sacrifice 
for  all  mankind  is  a  privilege  that  can  belong  only  to 
man  on  one  side,  for  man's  fault  is  in  question ;  only  to 
the  Divine  Son  of  God  on  the  other,  for  only  He  can 

*  Adv.  Ilasr.  v.  i.  1. 


396  -^I^S  '^^  FAITH.  [Essay  VIII. 

control  tlie  destinies  of  all  men.  If  the  "persuasion" 
has  been  rightly  referred  to  man,  and  not  to  Satan  (and 
Dorner  seems  to  have  clearly  established  it"),  then 
Irenseus  goes  very  little  beyond  Holy  Scripture  in  his 
attempt  to  explain  the  mystery  of  the  power  of  the  Evil 
One  over  ns.  In  both  we  are  to  be  redeemed  from 
Satan  and  from  death,  in  both  the  offering  of  One  whose 
power  over  the  human  race  is  unlimited  shall  procure 
deliverance.  The  doctrine  of  the  Atonement  is  knit 
up  with  that  of  the  Incarnation ;  and  he  does  not  ask 
whether  one  man  can  suffer  for  another,  but  what  man- 
ner of  person  He  must  be  whose  sufferings  can  have 
power  over  all  others  to  save  them. 

Tlie  doctrine  of  Athanasius  will  furnish  another 
sample  of  patristic  teaching.  Man  fell  through  sin, 
says  this  great  teacher ;  and  the  righteousness  of  God 
was  thus  brought  into  conflict  with  His  goodness.  Ac- 
cording  to  His  righteousness  and  truth,  He  who  has 
given  the  law  must  inflict  the  allotted  punishment  on 
those  who  break  it :  but  then  His  goodness  could  not 
suffer  that  man,  made  in  his  own  image,  should  perish 
through  the  deceit  of  the  Devil  and  his  angels.  It  were 
better  he  had  not  been  created.  How  shall  this  contra- 
diction be  solved  ?  By  man's  repentance  ?  Simple  re- 
pentance would  be  insufiicient  on  two  grounds  ;  because 
the  Divine  veracity,  which  had  promised  death,  would 
not  have  been  satisfied,  and  because  this  would  not  free 
man  from  the  physical  corruption  (y  Kara  (f>vcnv  (^Oopd) 
which  he  had  incurred.  The  Word  of  God,  the  Sou, 
who  created  the  world,  can  alone  restore  it.  He  is 
above  all,  and  can  sufter  and  satisfy  for  all,  and  free  all 
from  their  natural  corruption ;  for  He  indeed  created 
them  at  first,  and  so  can  re-create.  In  order  to  this 
restoration.  He,  the  incorporeal  and  incorruptible  Word, 
made  for  Himself  a  temple,  a  house,  in  a  human  form 
and  flesh.  Now  and  then  the  expressions  of  Athanasius 
savour  of  Apollinarian  views,  as  though  Christ  were 
the  nature  of  God  in  the  form^  of  man,  the  human  mind 

*  'Person  Christi,'  vol.  i.,  p.  470,  note  against  Baur,  '  Ycrsohnung,'  p.  35; 
compare  notes  in  Thomson's  *  Bampton  Lectures,'  p.  2S7. 


Essay  VIIL]  THE  DEATH  OF   CHRI3T.  397 

being  left  out  of  the  account;  but  in  other  places  no 
one  has  more  strongly  expressed  himself  against  this 
very  error,  and  his  comm.ent  on  the  words  "  Let  this 
cup  pass  from  me,"  and  on  "The  spirit  is  willing,  but 
the  flesh  is  weak,"  is  that  they  reveal  two  wills  in  man 
— the  human,  that  is  of  the  flesh,  and  the  Divine,  which 
is  from  God.  The  analogy  between  the  creation  and 
the  restoration  of  man  is  closely  pursued  by  Athanasius. 
lie  describes  the  redemption  more  as  a  mere  renewal 
tlian  as  a  development  and  completion  of  the  creation 
of  man ;  and  here  lies  the  peculiarity  of  his  system. 
The  curse  of  death  is  taken  away ;  but  more  than  this, 
the  Word  becomes,  through  the  Holy  Ghost,  a  living 
principle  diffused  through  the  hearts  of  men,  freeing 
them  from  the  power  of  sin,  and  enduing  them  with 
immortality.  What  part  the  death  of  the  Lord  bears 
in  our  restoration  w^ill  appear  from  such  expressions  as 
these.  His  death  is  "  a  sacrifice  oftered  on  behalf  of 
all  and  instead  of  all ; "  "'  and  it  reconciles  iis  to  the 
Father, f  for  in  it  Jesus  took  on  Him  the  punishments 
to  which  "sve  were  liable,  and,  by  sufiering  in  His  own 
body  our  punishment,  conferred  salvation  on  us.  X  Llis 
death  paid  a  debt,  §  and  ^vas  a  ransom  for  us.  ||  As  our 
High-Priest  He  brought  Himself  as  an  oftcring  to  the 
Father,  to  purge  us  from  our  sins  by  His  own  blood.T 
The  power  of  this  sacrifice  to  reconcile  for  the  whole 
human  species  arose  from  the  position  in  -which  Jesus 
stands  to  us  all ;  He  is  the  Creator,  and  again  He  is  the 
Ruler  of  all  the  world  and  of  mankind,  and  so  nothing 
that  He  does  but  must  influence  all.  When  a  king 
comes  into  a  great  city,  and  takes  up  his  dwelling  in  a 
single  house  of  it,  the  lionour  of  the  visit  is  reflected  on 
all  the  city ;  enemies  and  robbers  desist  from  their 
w^ork,  and,  through  the  presence  in  one  house,  the  whole 
city  is  protected.  So  it  is  with  the  presence  of  our 
King.*'-"  Wlio  can  fail  to  see  in  this  system  all  the 
Scriptural  elements  of  the  Atonement  faithfully  pre- 

*  Dc  Incar.  20.  t  De  Dccr.  14. 

t  Cont.  Ar.  i.  GO.  ^  Cont.  Ar.  ii.  GG. 

i  Cont.  Apol.  ii.  12.  1[  Cout.  Ar.  ii.  7. 
**  De  Incar.  ix. 


398  ^I^^  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  Tin. 

served  ?  More  than  tliis  might  be  proved  if  space  and 
time  allowed :  the  anxious  recurrence  to  Holy  Writ  as 
the  rule  of  faith,  the  correction  by  the  light  of  Scripture 
of  statements  that  run  perilously  close  to  error.  In  the 
Fathers  the  various  representations  of  the  work  of  the 
Lord, — the  ransom,  the  sacrifice,  the  conflict  with  Satan, 
— all  have  reference  to  His  death.  We  have  seen  this 
in  Athanasius.  TertuUian  uses  the  phrase  that  Christ 
is  "  the  universal  Priest  of  God,"  ''^  in  reference  to  His 
oflering  of  Himself  for  men.  IS"©  doubt  the  theories 
on  this  subject  were  indefinite  and  incomplete;  but  a 
greater  mistake  could  not  be  made  than  to  suppose  that 
the  doctrine  of  satisfaction  and  substitution  was  absent 
from  the  patristic  writings,  and  lay  dormant  till  the 
voice  of  Anselm  woke  it.  Origen,  who  is  often  said  to 
know  nothing  of  the  substitutive  suflferings  of  the  Lord, 
asserts  them  expressly  in  several  passages. f  Cj^ril  of 
Jerusalem  not  less  so: — *'We  were  enemies  of  God 
through  sin,  and  God  had  appointed  the  sinner  to  die. 
One  of  two  things  therefore  must  needs  have  happened, 
— that  God  keeping  His  word  should  destroy  all  men, 
or  that  iu  His  loving  kindness  He  should  cancel  the 
sentence.  But  behold  the  wisdom  of  God ;  He  pre- 
served both  the  truth  of  His  sentence  and  the  exercise 
of  His  loving  kindness.  Christ  took  our  sins  in  His 
own  body  on  the  tree,  that  we,  being  dead  to  sin,  should 
live  to  righteousness.":}:  So  Cyril  of  Alexandria: — 
"  Since  they  who  were  the  servants  of  sin  were  made 
subject  to  the  punishment  of  sin,  He  who  was  free  from 
sin,  and  had  trod  the  paths  of  all  righteousness,  under- 
went the  punishment  of  sinners,  destroying  by  His 
Cross  the  sentence  of  the  old  curse  .  .  .  '  being  made  a 
curse  for  us.'  "§  The  same  doctrine  is  found  in  Augus- 
tine, Hilary  of  Poitiers,  and  Ambrose.  Kone  of  these 
writers  worked  out  into  a  system  the  doctrine  of  the 

*  Cont.  Marc.  ir.  9. 

t  Cont.  Cels.  ii.  23,  and  vol.  xviii.  14,  Explan.  iu  Epist.  ad  Bom.  iii.  8. 
Compare  Mohler,  Symbolik.  p.  247. 

X  Catech,  xiii.  33. 

§  De  lucaruationc,  ch.  xxv.  in  Mai's  Patrum  Bibliotbcca.  It  is  doubtful 
whether  this  work  is  Cyril's,  but  it  is  of  about  the  same  date,  and  other  pas- 
sages as  express  arc  quoted  from  Cyril's  acknowledged  works. 


Essay  YIIL]  THE  DEATH  OF  CUEIST.  3gg 

substitutive  sacrifice  of  Christ;  but  it  is  absurd  to  pre- 
tend, with  these  passages  before  us,  that  Ausehn  was 
the  inventor  of  the  doctrine,  and  the  destroyer  of  another 
which  is  supposed  to  have  usurped  dominion  over  the 
minds  of  all  the  Fathers.  It  is  something  more  than 
absurd  when  words  are  put  into  the  mouth  of  Gregory 
JSTazianzen  which  he  never  spoke,  to  the  effect  that 
there  is  no  danger  in  errors  about  the  mode  of  our 
redemption.  * 

*  By  what  means  a  weak  cause  may  bo  supported  will  appear  from  the 
history  of  a  spurious  quotation.  Mr.  Garden,  in  his  tract  ahcady  quoted, 
says:  "  In  the  strong  language  of  Gregory  Nazianzcn,  we  may  affirm  that 
'  the  mode  in  which  Christ  has  redeemed  us  is  a  matter  in  which  we  may  err 
without  danger.'"  If  Gregory  the  Theologian  had  made  such  an  assertion, 
no  doubt  the  language  would  have  been  as  strong  as  it  was  startling.  But 
he  never  did.  Mr.  Garden  follows  Professor  Jowett-,  who  says:  "Gregory 
of  [sic]  Nazianzen  numbers  speculations  about  the  suflerings  of  Christ  among 
those  things  on  which  it  is  useful  to  have  correct  ideas,  but  not  dangerous  to 
be  mistaken."  Professor  Jowett  has  followed  F.  C.  Baur,  who,  however, 
quotes  the  whole  passage,  and  not  a  fragment  of  a  sentence,  and  admits  that 
it  is  not  in  harmony  with  the  rest  of  Gregory's  views.  The  passage  in 
question  comes  from  the  first  of  the  *  Theological  Orations'  of  Gregory  (Orat. 
xxvii.  [xxxiii.]),  in  which  he  is  inveighing  against  the  Eunomians  for  the 
length  to  which  they  carry  their  speculations  on  the  nature  and  counsels  of 
God.  He  suggests  other  subjects  of  discussion  from  profane  philosophy,  in 
which  they  may  show  oflt' their  skill  and  eloquence  without  wronging  Go'd  by 
irreverence.  He  then  says:  "But  if  you  think  these  things  unworthy  of 
discussion,  as  trifling  things  that  have  been  often  refuted,  and  desire  to  em- 
ploy yourself  on  your  own  subjects,  and  seek  the  distinction  that  may  arise 
from  these,  I  will  afibrd  you  even  here  a  wide  field.  Philosophize  about  the 
world  or  worlds,  about  matter,  the  soul,  about  reasonable  creatures  higher 
and  lower,  about  resurrection,  judgment,  retribution,  the  suffer  in  qs  of _  Christ ; 
for  ill  these  things  to  attain  our  olijcct  is  not  xiseleis,  and  to  fail  (f  it  is  free 
from  peril  (rh  iTriTvyxaf^^v  ovk  ^xpriarov  koX  to  diafiaprdi^eiv  a.KivSui/oi/).'''' 
Here  there  is  not  a  word  about  "  the  mode  in  which  Christ  has  redeemed 
us ; "  the  nature  of  our  Lord's  sufTcrinojs  is  what  they  are  allowed  to  discuss, 
and  not  tlic  consequences  of  those  suflerings,  of  which  no  hint  is  given.  As 
well  say  that  the  passage  tells  us  it  is  safe  to  err  on  the  side  of  materialism, 
because  matter  is  mentioned  ;  or  safe  to  deny  the  soul's  immortality,  because 
the  soul  is  mentioned.  There  are  questions,  physical  and  metaphysical, 
about  all  these  things,  which  admit  of  discussion,  and  yet  need  not  trench  on 
vital  Christian  truth.  The  origin  and  duration  of  the  world,  the  nature  of 
matter,  the  soul's  connexion  with  the  body,  the  nature  of  reason,  the  state  of 
the  body  in  the  resurrection,  tlie  nature  of  future  rewards  and  punishments, 
the  sufferings  of  the  Lord,  how  far  physical  and  how  far  mental,  are  all  ques- 
tions of  this  sort.  It  is  not  even  clear  that  the  word  Sia/jLapTaueiu  means  "  to 
err  from  the  truth;"  it  may  be,  as  Leunclavius  renders  it,  "to  fail  of  your 
object,"  and  the  object  in  this  case  is  success  in  disputation.  But  on  this  I 
do  not  insist.  We  have  here  the  solitary  patristic  ciuotation  by  which  lax 
views  about  the  Atonement  are  supposed  to  be  encouraged  ;  and  ^Ir.  Jowett 
prints  part  of  the  sentence,  when  the  whole  would  have  at  once  disarmed 
his  argument,  whilst  Mr.  Garden  puts  words  into  the  mouth  of  this  Father 
which  he  never  used,  which  he  could  not  and  would  not  liave  used.  We  are 
thankful  for  the  admission  that  this  is  the  best  that  can  be  done  on  that  side 


400  ^II^S  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  YIII. 

7.  But  it  is  time  to  pass  to  Anselm,  the  reputed 
parent  of  our  modern  teaching ;  and  we  ought  to  be 
thoroughly  satisfied  upon  the  question  whether  he  has 
or  has  not  supplanted  the  Bible  in  our  pulpits  and 
treatises,  and  in  our  thoughts.  The  Cur  Deus  Ilomo^ 
of  this  great  and  truly  humble  writer,  is  an  attempt  to 
answer  the  question.  Why  was  it  requisite  for  man's 
salvation  that  God  should  become  man  ?  Considering 
the  Divine  omnipotence,  w^e  might  expect  that  the 
mere  fiat  of  His  will  or  the  acceptance  of  some  lower 
sacrifice  than  that  of  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God 
might  have  sufticed  to  effect  the  reconciliation.  The 
incidents  of  the  Incarnation  and  the  Crucifixion  seem 
derogatory  to  God  ;  the  Infinite  Spirit  clothing  Him- 
self with  a  finite  nature,  and  allowing  finite  men  and 
the  power  of  evil  to  assail  and  triumpli  over  Him, 
these  are  representations  that  may  shock  our  rever- 
ence. If  redemption  was  required  at  all,  wdiy  w^as  it 
not  effected  by  means  of  a  sinless  man  who  was  no 
more  than  man  ?  A  mere  man  caused  the  fall,  a  mere 
man  might  have  sufiiced  for  the  restoration.  Anselm 
replies  that  this  would  not  have  procured  man's  per- 
fect restoration,  for  it  would  have  left  men  dependent 
on  one  of  themselves ;  he  to  wdiom  they  owed  re- 
demption would  have  been  in  some  sense  their  mas- 
ter instead  of  God.  But  why,  it  may  be  urged,  was 
there  any  need  of  redemption  at  all?  When  we  speak 
of  God's  anger,  w^e  mean  neither  more  nor  less  than 
His  will  to  punish.  The  moment  that  will  is  with- 
drawn, there  is  neither  anger  nor  punishment  to  fear ; 
and  so  it  might  appear  that  a  mere  revocation  of  the 
will  to  punish  would  of  itself  constitute  salvation. 
The  argument  that  God  gave  His  Son  as  a  ransom  for 
man  from  the  power  of  Satan,  because  it  was  right 

of  the  argument.  Let  us  put  a  true  quotation  from  Gregory  in  the  place  of 
the  sham  one :  "...  the  very  sufleriugs  of  Christ  by  which  all  of  us,  without 
exception,  were  restored  {av^Tr\a.aQr]ii^v)  who  partake  of  the  nature  of  the 
same  Adam,  and  were  deceived  by  the  serpent  and  brought  into  the  death 
of  sin,  and  were  saved  again  by  the  heavenly  Adam,  and  were  brought  back 
to  the  tree  of  life  whence  we  had  fallen,  by  means  of  the  tree  of  ignominy" 
(Orat.  xxxiii.  p.  GOD,  ed.  Paris,  IS-iO).  This  is  one  among  many  statementa 
as  to  "  the  mode  in  which  Christ  redeemed  us." 


Essay  YIII.]  THE  DEATH  OF  CHRIST.  401 

and  just  to  recover  by  fair  means  a  race  avIio  liacl  freely 
and  voluntarily  given  themselves  over  to  liis  power,  is 
at  once  dismissed :  for  the  true  reasons,  namely,  that 
the  Devil  cannot  properly  have  either  merit  or  power 
or  right  over  man  ;  that  the  power  which  in  one  sense 
he  exerts  against  mankind  was  only  permissive,  and 
that  it  expired  when  the  permission  was  withdrawn. 
He  then  proceeds  to  establish  the  need  of  redemption 
on  purer  grounds.  Every  creature  that  can  will  and 
act  owes  to  God  an  entire  obedience,  as  the  honour  due 
to  Him.  All  sin,  then,  is  a  wrong  done  to  His  honour,  of 
what  kind  soever  the  offence  is.  Punishment  must 
attach  to  sin  invariabl}^,  in  order  to  mark  the  difference 
between  sin  and  holiness ;  it  would  not  only  encourage 
sin,  if  men  thought  that  the  Almighty  were  blind  to  it, 
but  would  obscure  and  distort  our  views  of  the  Divine 
nature  itself,  if  we  conceived  of  Him  as  one  to  whom 
sin  and  its  opposite  are  both  alike.  We  should  thus 
regard  God  as  admitting  sin  into  the  order  of  the 
universe  without  dissent  or  protest,  whereas  we  know 
that  the  very  nature  of  sin  is  disorder.  God,  however, 
cannot  suffer  disorder ;  for  though  sin  could  not  really 
detract  from  His  power  and  dignity,  its  aim  and  in- 
tent are  to  dishonour  and  deface,  as  far  as  may  be,  the 
beauty  of  the  Divine  government.  If  it  may  do  this 
and  yet  draw  at  pleasure  on  the  Divine  but  free  forgive- 
ness, unrighteousness  is  more  free  and  unshackled 
than  obedience.  IS^ow  no  man  can  render  for  his 
brethren  the  full  obedience  required  :  "  a  sinner  cannot 
justify  a  sinner."  Even  if  a  man  with  his  heart  full  of 
love  and  contrition  were  to  renounce  all  earthly 
solaces,  and  in  labour  and  abstinence  to  strive  to  obey 
God  in  all  things,  and  to  do  good  to  all  and  forgive  all, 
he  would  only  be  doing  his  duty.  But  he  is  unable  to 
do  even  this  ;  and  it  is  his  misery  that  he  cannot  plead 
his  inability  as  an  excuse,  because  that  proceeds  from 
sin.  He  must  be  of  the  same  nature  as  those  for 
whom  he  renders  the  obedience,  in  order  that  it  may 
be  accepted  as  theirs ;  and  yet  if  the  satisfaction  is  to 
be  complete,  he  nnist  be  able  to  render  to  God  some- 


402  ^II^S  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  VIII. 

thing  greater  than  every  created  thing,  for  among  men 
pure  righteousness  is  not  to  be  found  ;  and  if  so,  he 
must  be  God,  for  what  is  there  above  the  creature  but 
God  Himself?  Therefore  he  must  be  God  and  man, 
whose  life  far  exalted  above  all  created  things  must  be 
infinitely  valuable.  As  to  the  manner  of  this  redemp- 
tion, Anselm  uses  these  words,  which  bear  on  a  con- 
troverted point  in  his  theory:  —  ''If  man  sinned  for 
pleasure,  is  it  not  consistent  that  he  should  make  satisfac- 
tion by  hardness  ?  And  if  he  were  most  easily  over- 
come by  the  Devil,  so  as  to  dishonour  God  by  sin,  is 
it  not  just  that  man,  making  satisfaction  to  God  for 
sin,  should  conquer  the  Devil,  for  the  honour  of  God, 
in  the  most  difficult  manner?"  If  he  departed  from 
God  completely  by  sin,  the  mode  of  making  satisfac- 
tion should  be  by  a  complete  devotion  to  God.  Now 
man  can  undergo  nothing  harder  or  more  difficult,  for 
the  honour  of  God,  than  death ;  nor  can  he  devote 
himself  to  God  more  completely  than  when  he  delivers 
himself  to  death  for  His  honour.*  But  Anselm  insists 
more  on  the  life  of  obedience  which  was  acted  out 
by  Jesus,  and  which  no  other  could  have  rendered,  as 
the  satisfaction  which  was  rendered  to  God.  He  made 
atonement  for  men,  by  rendering  through  life  a  per- 
fect obedience,  in  lieu  of  theirs,  and  by  a  death  which, 
as  sinless.  He  did  not  owe,  and  as  God  He  might  have 
escaped.  Thus  is  the  Divine  mercy,  which  seems  to 
be  excluded  when  we  think  of  the  Divine  justice  and 
of  the  infinite  amount  of  sin,  brought  into  perfect 
harmony  with  justice,  so  that  the  reason  can  discern 
that  no  better  scheme  of  redemption  could  have  been 
devised. 

8.  This  is  a  rough  sketch  of  the  system  to  which, 
as  we  are  often  told,  modern  theology  is  indebted  for 
the  theory  of  satisfaction  which  it  teaches.     We  are 

*  II.  11.  I  find  in  this  passac;©  the  doctrine  of  vicarious  retribution, 
which  ]]aur  fails  to  find  in  the  Cur  Dexis  Homo.  Mr.  Garden  (p.  5),  in  de- 
ciding between  us  on  this  point,  tliiuks  it  enough  to  quote  a  passage  in  the 
next  chapter  (II.  li.')  which  is  supposed  to  preckide  the  doctrine.  "The  pas- 
sage, however,  seems  to  mc  wholly  irrelevant,  referring  merely  to  the  ques- 
tion whether  what  one  does  Avillingly  can  be  the  cause  of  misery. 


Essay  VIII.]  THE  DEATH  OF  CUEIST.  4q3 

supposed  by  inaiiy  to  owe  the  doctrine  of  the  Cross  to 
a  pious  Christian  writer,  as  late  as  the  eleventh  century. 
Let  us  sift  the  claim. 

The  foundation  of  Anselni's  tlieory  is  found  in 
Athanasius.  Both  these  writers  view  the  Atonement 
liabitually  as  a  transaction  before  the  bar  of  Divine 
justice  in  heaven;  both  seek  the  explanation  of  its 
possibility  in  the  divine  nature  of  him  wdio  atones ; 
both  conceive  it  as  the  payment  of  a  debt  due  to  God. 
It  would  have  been  equally  hard  for  both  to  admit  the 
force  of  the  modern  objection  that  it  is  not  lawful  for 
one  man  to  be  punished  for  another;  for  while  the 
perfect  human  nature  of  the  Lord  was  essential  to 
complete  the  Atonement,  the  human  nature  is  dwelt  in 
by  the  divine,  and  the  will  that  chooses  to  suffer  for 
man  is  divine.  With  both  these  writers  the  great  mo- 
ment of  the  Atonement  is  found  in  the  Licarnation ; 
in  the  presence  in  human  flesh  of  one  able  to  act  for 
men.  What  we  owe  to  Anselm  is  not  so  much  the 
general  plan  of  salvation  as  the  minute  and  careful 
delineation  of  it.  Nowhere  else  is  there  such  logical 
precision,  such  a  continnons  chain  of  deduction.  This 
is  the  kind  of  originality  w^hich  we  ought  to  attribute 
to  him. 

9.  Anselm  has  indeed  introduced  a  word,  which 
has  ever  since  been  associated  with  the  dogma  of  the 
Atonement — the  w^ord  satisfaction.  But  a  new  word 
is  not  necessarily  an  innovation  in  thought.  The 
legal  sense  of  the  word  satisfaction  is  the  appeasing  a 
creditor  on  the  subject  of  his  debt,  not  necessarily  by 
the  payment  of  it  (solutio),  but  by  any  means  that  he 
will  accept.  It  is  used  more  than  once  by  Tertullian, 
but  not  in  the  sense  of  mcarious  satisfaction ;  in  that 
sense  no  doubt  it  owes  its  currency  to  Anselm.  It  has 
gone  far  to  replace  the  word  sacrifice.  But  the  funda- 
mental ideas  of  the  two  w^ords  are  not  so  far  apart  as 
is  often  assumed.  Sacrifice,  in  the  usage  of  the  Bible, 
is  the  appointed  rite  by  which  a  Jewish  citizen,  who 
has  broken  the  law  and  forfeited  thereby  his  position 
within  the  pale  of  the  Covenant,  is  enabled  to  procure 


404  ^^^^  TO  FAITII.  [Essay  YIII. 

liis  restoration.  It  is  a  Jewish  word,  and  belongs  to 
the  positive  provisions  of  the  Jewish  polity,  and  not  to 
general  ethics.  Still,  as  the  Jewish  constitution  re- 
jected the  general  dealings  of  God  with  all  the  world, 
the  term  sacrifice  applies  to  the  restoration  of  all  men 
who  have  strayed  from  God  by  their  sins.  With 
thankful  hearts  we  may  look  up  to  Christ  as  the  lamb 
of  our  paschal  sacrifice ;  since  by  His  death  and  resur- 
rection, and  without  any  merit  or  effort  of  our  own, 
we  are  restored  to  the  place  before  God  which  we  had 
lost.  The  word  satisfaction,  on  the  other  hand,  implies 
a  debt  which  we  have  not  the  means  of  paying,  a  debt 
of  punishment  in  consequence  of  our  sins,  or  of  obe- 
dience to  compensate  former  disobedience.  Both 
terms  imply  a  restoration  through  something  which  is 
not  us  nor  ours.  Whether  we  speak  of  it  as  a  sacrifice 
or  a  payment,  the  same  thought  may  be  present  to  our 
minds ;  a  reconcilement  of  God  and  us,  wrought  not 
by  us  but  by  our  Eedeemer.  It  is  a  gain  to  us,  as 
sacrificial  usages  become  forgotten,  to  acquire  a  term 
which  expresses  the  same  idea  appealing  to  the  prin- 
ciples of  general  ethics.  But  facts,  and  not  words,  are 
the  subject  of  revelation  ;  what  we  believe  is  that  the 
death  of  the  Redeemer  purchased  our  life,  our  recon- 
ciliation, that  without  His  obedience  our  sins  would 
have  borne  their  natural  fruit  of  death.  And  whether 
we  call  this  act  a  sacrifice,  on  account  of  its  being  an 
oftcring  to  appease  the  Divine  wrath,  or  a  satisfaction, 
as  it  is  a  mode  of  payment  which  God  accepts  instead 
of  the  debt  of  obedience  that  we  cannot  render,  is  of 
less  importance  than  might  at  first  appear.  So  long  as 
we  believe  that  the  wrath  of  God  because  of  our  diso- 
bedience fell  in  the  shape  of  affliction  on  Him  who 
alone  had  so  acted  as  to  please  God,  the  terms  in  which 
it  may  be  expressed  may  be  suftered  to  vary. 

10.  The  system  of  Anselm  is  indeed  open  to  criti- 
cism, but  not  for  the  introduction  of  the  word  sacrifice. 
So  far  is  it  from  being  an  undue  development  of  Holy 
"Writ,  tliat  it  falls  far  short  of  it  in  the  completeness  of 
its  statements.     As  the  Atonement  transcends  all  our 


Essay  VIII.]  THE  DEATH  OF  CUEIST.  4Q5 

means  of  exposition,  it  nuist  needs  be  tliat,  the  more 
exactly  it  is  litted  to  any  analogous  human  afiairs,  tlie 
more  entirely  will  some  of  its  complex  elements  he 
omitted  from  the  description.  Hence,  for  example, 
there  is  the  danger  lest  the  Atonement  degenerate  into 
a  transaction  between  a  righteous  Father  on  the  one 
side,  and  a  loving  Saviour  on  the  other,  because  in  the 
human  transaction  from  which  the  analogy  is  drawn 
two  distinct  parties  are  concerned  ;  whereas  in  the 
plan  of  salvation  one  will  operates,  and  in  the  Father 
and  the  Son  alike  justice  and  love  are  reconciled. 
Again,  the  reconciliation  efiected  by  Christ  appears 
rather  as  a  bringing  God  into  harmony  w^ith  Himself, 
His  mercy  with  His  justice,  than  as  a  reconciliation  of 
man  with  God.  The  passages  of  ScrijDture  that  speak 
of  the  wrath  of  God  against  man  are  not  explicable  of 
Anselm's  system.  The  exclamation  of  the  Baptist, 
that  Jesus  is  the  Lamb  of  God,  that  taketh  away  the 
sill  of  the  world  ;  the  prophecy  of  His  sufferings  by 
Isaiah  (ch.  liii.) ;  the  words  of  Peter  that  He  "  his  own 
self  bare  our  sins  in  his  ow^n  body  on  the  tree  ;"*  and 
passages  of  like  import  in  St.  Paul's  writings, f  can 
only  find  place  with  Anselm  by  a  very  forced  interpre- 
tation. His  scheme  is  mainly  this,  that  the  merit  of 
the  perfect  obedience  of  Jesus  was  so  great  as  to  de- 
serve a  great  reward,  and  that  in  answer  to  the  prayer 
of  the  Lord  this  reward  was  given  in  the  form  of  the 
salvation  of  His  brethren.  But  Christ  does  not  appear 
in  this  system  as  groaning  and  suffering  nnder  the 
curse  of  the  w^orld,  as  He  does  in  Lloly  Scripture. 
Until  the  time  of  Anselm  the  doctrine  of  the  Atone- 
ment had  within  certain  limits  fluctuated  with  the 
change  of  teachers  ;  the  doctrine  itself  was  one  and 
the  same,  but  this  or  that  aspect  of  it  had  been  made 
prominent.  Anselm  aimed  at  fixing  in  one  system  the 
scattered  truths  ;  and  the  result  has  been  that  he,  like 
his  predecessors,  made  some  parts  of  tlie  truth  conspic- 
uous to  the  prejudice  of  the  rest. 

11.  Looking  fairly  at  the  whole  period  from  Igna- 

*  1  Pet.  ii.  24.  t  Gal.  iii.  13.    2  Cor.  v.  21. 


4Qg  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  LEssay  VIIL 

tins  to  Anselm,  we  are  obliged  to  own  that  tlie  efficacy 
of  the  death  of  the  Lord  was  always  believed,  and  that 
of  the  three  parts  or  moments  of  this  doctrine,  the  love, 
and  the  justice,  and  the  practical  obedience,  not  one 
fell  to  the  ground.  The  theory  of  a  victory  over  Satan, 
gained  by  deceit,  shrinks  into  its  proper  proportions  ; 
it  is  an  excrescence  on  the  truth,  and  not  a  leprosy 
turning  all  the  truth  into  corruption. 

III.  1.  Holy  Scrij^ture  contains  the  doctrine,  and  the 
Church  has  always  taught  it.  Whence,  then,  the  re- 
pugnance to  it  which  some  persons  of  serious  and  de- 
vout minds  have  expressed  ?  The  objections  for  the 
most  part  take  tlie  form  of  a  denial  that  it  is  possible 
that  one  man  should  suffer  for  the  sin  of  another ;  that 
the  wrath  of  God  could  be  appeased  by  the  sacrifice  of 
one  who  had  done  no  sin  in  the  place  of  the  sinful.  A 
thorough-going  sense  of  man's  responsibility  for  his  own 
acts,  and  a  reluctance  to  own  that  the  sufferings  of  the 
just  can  ever  be  the  consequence  of  the  sins  of  others, 
are  the  two  principal  motives  at  work.  IIow  can  these 
be  most  easily  dealt  with  ? 

2.  All  the  difficulties  that  belong  to  this  question 
are  introduced  prior  to  it  by  a  consideration  of  sin  it- 
self. The  conscience  of  man  admits  that  there  is  such 
a  thing  as  guilt ;  and  so  strong,  decided,  and  constant 
is  its  witness,  that  there  is  no  fear  that  mankind  in  the 
long  run  will  attempt  to  explain  away  the  fact  that  sin, 
exists.  But  when  I  am  asked  to  believe  that  it  is 
against  the  Divine  plan  that  any  other  being  should 
take  away  from  mc  any  of  the  consequences  of  my 
guilt,  I  think  m3^self  entitled  to  say  that  it  is  the  cor- 
relative of  this  proposition  that  no  one  should  have 
brought  upon  me  any  of  the  guilt  and  its  consequences. 
It  is  surely  not  more  repugnant  to  God's  justice  that 
another  should  bear  my  guilt  than  that  I  should  be 
guilty  because  of  another ;  nay.  Divine  justice  will  be 
more  readily  reconciled  with  a  plan  in  which  One  who 
is  entirely  willing  to  bear  my  sin  should  take  ofi'its  in- 
tolerable burden  from  me  who  am  earnestlv  desirous 
to  get  rid  of  it,  than  with  a  plan  in  whicli  sinfulness 


Essay  VIII.]  THE  DExVTII  OF   CIIIIIST.  4q7 

devolves  from  one  who  did  not  mean  liis  own  faults  to 
do  me  harm,  upon  me  who  by  no  means  wished  to  in- 
herit them.  But  this  kind  of  devolution,  or  transmis- 
sion, is  a  fact  of  constant  occurrence  of  whicli  no  man 
can  be  ignorant.  We  open  the  works  of  writers  like 
Broussais  and  Biichner,  and  find  such  importance  given 
to  the  influence  on  moral  habits  of  hereditary  transmis- 
sion, of  age,  sex,  maladies,  mode  of  living,  and  climate, 
that  the  doctrine  of  individual  responsibility  seems  for 
the  moment  to  be  in  peril.  We  need  to  retire  within, 
and  take  counsel  of  conscience,  in  order  to  resist  the 
invitation  to  believe  "that  what  we  call  free-will  is 
nothing  but  our  being  conscious  of  a  will,  without  be- 
ing conscious  of  the  antecedents  that  determine  its 
mode  of  action,"  which,  translated  into  plainer  non- 
sense, would  mean — being  conscious  of  our  will  with^ 
out  being  conscious  that  we  did  not  possess  one.  But 
all  are  agreed  that  outward  circumstances  and  inw^ard 
constitution  derived  from  parents  and  ancestors  by 
physical  laws,  have  a  great  influence  npon  the  charac- 
ter of  men.  In  extreme  cases  this  may  be  true  to  the 
extent  of  paralysing  the  will  altogether.  If  a  young 
man  has  sprung  from  parents  of  intemperate  habits, 
who  lived  by  stealing,  and  has  been  brought  np  among 
companions  of  the  same  sort,  we  shall  hardly  look  to 
find  him  any  better  than  the  soil  in  which  ]ie  grew ; 
and  any  efforts  to  amend  him  and  call  forth  his  moral 
nature  would  be  preceded  by  the  effort  to  transplant 
him.  Alike  in  the  good  and  evil  qualities  of  men  the 
eflfect  of  hereditary  transmission  comes  nnder  daily 
notice.  And  since  we  are  alwa^^s  invited  in  this  ques- 
tion to  discuss  it  in  forensic  language,  and  are  told  that 
no  man  can  be  allowed  before  a  human  tribunal  to 
take  upon  himself  the  position  of  the  criminal  and 
suffer  the  punishment  of  another,  because  every  one 
arraigned  there  must  bear  his  own  burden,  ^ve  must 
remark  thatj  if  every  one  did  actually  bear  his  own 
burden  there,  human  justice  w^ould  have  attained  a 
perfection  which  it  has  never  yet  boasted.  In  gradu- 
ated punishments  for  the  same  ofience  there  is  a  rough 


408  ^^I^S  TO  FAITH.'  [Essay  VIII. 

attempt  to  take  into  account  tlio  antecedents  of  tlic 
criminal  and  the  amount  of  his  temptation  ;  but  these 
palliations  are  not  proved  in  evidence,  and  it  is  by  a 
rough  guess  only  that  an  equitable  apportionment  of 
punishment  is  attempted.  In  defining  the  line  at 
which  mental  imbecility  extinguishes  all  sense  of  re- 
sponsibility laws  have  utterly  failed,  and  tribunals 
liave  stultified  themselves  by  conflicting  decisions. 
But  the  arguments  on  these  cases  prove  that  all  be- 
lieve in  a  class  of  minds  where  guilt  is  just  imputable 
and  no  more, — where  the  mental  debility,  often  con- 
genital, all  but  extinguishes  the  moral  offence.  In 
cases  of  such  nice  difficulty,  mistakes  must  be  made ; 
punishment  must  fall  on  the  wrong  man.  Nor  is  this 
mere  speculation ;  a  man  has  been  decided  insane  at 
one  place  for  a  crime  for  which  another  man  at  another 
place  has  been  hanged,  according  as  the  judge  and  jury 
made  prominent  in  their  minds  the  safety  of.  society  or 
consideration  for  the  supposed  criminal.  Capital  pun- 
ishment has  fallen  upon  men  who,  upon  the  same  facts 
before  a  different  tribunal,  would  have  been  judged  to 
have  exercised  no  choice  at  all,  but  to  have  acted  out 
the  course  to  which  birth  and  disease  and  the  like 
compelled  them.  Absolute  compulsion  of  this  kind  is 
no  doubt  rare ;  but  absolute  freedom  is  more  than  rare, 
it  is  impossible.  Men  enter  this  vrorld  the  heirs  of  pas- 
sions, perhaps  cultivated  in  the  last  generation  to  an 
unnatural  height ;  they  are  nurtured  on  bad  examples 
and  a  low  morality,  so  that  they  cannot  do  the  things 
that  they  would.  And  it  is  the  rule,  and  not  the  ex- 
ception, that  men's  moral  actions  are  tinctured  with 
the  colour  of  the  actions  of  others  before  and  around 
them,  which  they  could  not  possibly  have  caused. 
Now,  if  these  facts  are  admitted, — if,  instead  of  that 
perfect  isolation  of  responsibility  which  some  insist  on, 
a  joint  responsibility  is  the  universal  rule, — with  what 
show  of  reason  can  they  pretend  that  it  is  on  this  ground 
that  the  Christian  scheme  is  untenable  ?  Look  into  the 
black  London  alleys  teeming  with  ignorance,  improvi- 
dence, and  vice ;  do  you  not  see  Avritten  in  those  faces 


Essay  VIII.]  TUE  DEATH  OF  CIIKIbT.  4Q9 

eloquent  in  wretclicdness,  ''  We  did  not  place  ourselves 
here  :  were  the  choice  given  us  freely,  we  would  not  be 
as  we  arc  "  ?  Then  wdiat  do  we  think  of  the  consisten- 
cy of  those  who  see  guilt  brought  on  by  others,  but 
think  it  revolting  that  another  should  take  it  off?  Liv- 
ing comments  upon  the  words  "In  Adam  all  die" 
abound,  and  cannot  be  blotted  out:  it  ought  not  then 
to  revolt  our  moral  sense  that  those  other  words  are 
added,  "In  Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive."  The  latter 
w^ords,  in  fact,  go  far  to  solve  the  mystery  of  the  former. 
For  the  constant  transmission  of  sinfulness,  the  heritage 
of  sins  bequeathed  from  the  fathers  to  their  children,  is 
revolting  to  the  moral  sense  when  severed  from  the 
thought  of  a  Deliverer.  The  message  of  Heaven  to  us 
is,  "  Ye  are  all  of  one  flimily,  partakers  of  the  family 
heritage  of  sin,  and  wretchedness,  and  ruin  ;  and  yet 
every  one  of  you  driven  by  th(>  stimulus  of  conscience 
to  protest  against  the  ruin,  and  to  erect  yourselves 
above  it.  Ye  are  accustomed  to  this  derived  destruc- 
tion, this  hereditary  partnership  in  guilt ;  lift  your  eyes 
one  step  further  back,  to  that  common  Father  from 
w^hom  ye  sprung,  from  whom  ye  have  lived  in  separa- 
tion. By  taking  your  nature  I  will  re-establish  that 
lost  connection,  I  w^ill  make  the  Father's  lost  favour 
accessible  to  you  again.  I  will  undo  the  curse,  by 
placing  myself  under  it.  I  will  sanctify  the  flesh, 
which  the  sin  of  generations  has  made  unclean.  For 
I  am  partaker  of  the  Father's  nature,  and  the  power 
over  you  which  belongs  to  Him  is  mine  also ;  and  I 
am  partaker  of  your  nature  in  all  save  in  the  sin  of  it ; 
and  thus  I  am  the  Mediator  between  God  and  man." 

3.  There  is  then  nothing  new  or  startling  in  the  rev- 
elation of  a  great  moral  good  bestowed  on  us  without 
our  effort;  it  is  in  harmony  with  the  system  under 
which  we  live,  as  members  of  a  great  family  having 
common  interests  even  in  things  belonging  to  the  soul. 
But,  beside  the  general  iact,  the  mode  of" our  redemp- 
tion, mysterious  as  it  must  be,  should  still  be  in  har- 
mony with  our  mental  constitution  ;  it  should  be  such 
as  not  to  shock  our  natural  exq^ectatlon.  AVe  cannot 
18 


410  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  VIII, 

possibly  hope  to  undGrstaiid  it ;  but  it  must  not  be  sucli 
that  we  can  understand  it  ought  not  to  be.  The  ques- 
tion— Why  should  Jesus  have  died  for  our  sins  instead 
of  simply  declaring  forgiveness  ?  Why  was  not  He  the 
ambassador  of  forgiveness  instead  of  the  artificer  of  it  ? — 
will  obtrude  even  upon  submissive  minds.  Xow  the 
death  of  Jesus,  after  such  a  life  as  His,  was  the  crown- 
ing act  and  achievement  of  sin ;  and  so  showed  to  man 
the  extent  of  his  own  corruption.  Here  was  one  whose 
every  act  went  to  deserve  the  titles  of  "  the  Holy  One, 
and  the  Just,"  whose  love  for  His  own  people  gushed 
forth  through  the  openings  of  a  hundred  miracles 
wrought  for  their  good  :  whose  speech  w^as  meek,  and 
whose  life  could  provoke  no  jealousy,  nor  threaten  the 
foundations  of  any  lawful  power;  who  had  fed,  or 
healed,  or  taught  many  thousands  of  the  people  that 
ought  to  have  been  ready  witnesses  in  His  behalf;  whose 
doctrines  seldom  tailed  to  produce  on  the  hearers  a  pro- 
found impression  in  favour  of  a  teacher  different  from 
and  iar  above  all  others  ;  yet  whose  goodness  quickened 
the  hatred  of  those  in  authority,  and  was  the  direct 
cause  of  reviling,  persecution,  and  death.  By  how 
much  the  example  of  the  sinless  Jesus  is  conspicuous, 
by  so  much  is  the  sin  of  His  persecution  and  death  in- 
tensified. Had  there  been  in  the  Lord  (the  supposition 
must  be  pardoned)  one  trace  of  human  folly  or  sin, 
high-priest  and  Pharisee  would  have  been  more  toler- 
ant, because  the  contrast  that  rebuked  them  would  have 
been  less  violent.  But  that  shining  armour  showed  no 
flaw  nor  stain.  Their  hatred  was  pure  hatred  of  good- 
ness ;  their  sentence  of  death  was  passed  because  there 
was  no  crime ;  the  death  itself  was  the  first  death  that 
was  the  wages  of  no  sin.  And  so  the  Apostles,  in 
preaching  the  Gospel,  wanted  no  better  arguments  for 
condemning  sin  :  that  men  had  imbrued  their  hands  in 
the  blood  of  One  who  was  sinless  and  who  loved  them, 
was  enough  to  abase  any  candid  spirit.  As  when  some 
man  of  doubtful  repute  becomes  suddenly  recognized  as 
the  author  of  some  enormous  crime,  and  all  his  fellows 
rocoH  fx'om  him,  and  will  not  give  him  a  cup  of  water 


Essay  VIIL]  TUE  DEATU  OF  CUEIST.  4^2 

lest  they  seem  to  countenance  Lis  evil  deed,  so,  when 
mankind  saw  that  the  blood  of  the  sinless  Jesns  was  red 
on  the  hand  of  the  rulers  and  the  people,  they  were 
pricked  to  the  heart  by  the  spectacle,  and  fled  from  a 
haunt  of  guilt  too  horrible  for  them  to  live  in  longer. 

"  Men  and  brethren,  what  shall  we  do  ? Save 

yourselves  from  this  untoward  generation."  *  In  tlie 
death  of  Jesus  sin  stood  revealed  to  itself.  In  that  deed 
it  first  reached  its  full  height ;  it  brought  forth  into  act 
all  the  potential  consequences  of  ages  of  lust  and  malice. 
The  devil  was  a  liar  and  a  murderer  from  the  beginning, 
and  men  obeyed  him  in  all  falsehood  and  wrong.  But 
lie  never  showed  what  he  was  capable  of  till  he  mur- 
dered the  sinless  Redeemer  in  the  name  of  God.  And 
with  that  crowning  act  his  power  was  scattered  and 
overthrown.  We  are  almost  tempted  to  recur  to  the 
language  of  the  Fathers,  as  to  the  delusion  into  which 
Satan  was  betrayed.  Satan  as  lightning  fell  from  heav- 
en, just  as  he  stood  upon  the  highest  heap  of  ruin. 
And  out  of  the  discord  and  the  darkness  of  that  hour, 
the  most  terrible  in  human  history,  was  heard  a  voice 
proclaiming  peace  to  man,  just  when  Satan's  foot  was 
planted  most  firmly  on  his  neck. 

4.  "  But,"  it  is  answered,  ''  what  we  object  to  is  the 
use  of  such  words  as  imply  that  Jesus  fell  under  the 
wrath  of  God  and  became  a  curse  for  us.  These  cannot 
be  applied  properly  to  our  Lord ;  but  if  at  all,  only  in 
a  loose  and  figurative  way."  Now  what  are  the  tokens 
of  the  curse  under  which  man  labours  ?t  It  shows 
itself  in  his  social  relations,  in  his  relation  to  nature,  and 
in  his  relation  to  God. 

The  contrast  between  our  aspirations  after  social 
progress  and  the  actual  state  of  society  marks  stron^£]jly 
the  effect  of  sin  and  wrath  upon  it.  Whilst  we  sigh 
after  a  reign  of  industry  and  peace  and  love,  the  thun- 
ders of  a  causeless  and  profitless  war  mutter  again  in 
the  air,  and  portend  the  loss  of  the  fruits  of  fifty  years 
of  progress  to  the  devoted  nations  engaged  in  it.     We 

*  Acts  ii.  37,  40. 

t  See  Gess,  Lebrc,  v.  d.  *  Vcrsiilmung.' 


^22  ^1^^^  '^'^  FAITH.  [EbbayVIII. 

would  befriend  and  raise  the  poor,  but  the  necessities 
of  their  position  are  a  chain  round  them  that  seems  to 
make  us  and  them  helpless  for  good.  For  want  of  a 
little  more  food  and  a  little  more  room  in  their  dwell- 
ings, the  sublimest  truths  fall  dead  upon  their  ears. 
Every  great  step  of  social  progress,  however  plainly 
good  and  just,  has  had  its  battlefields  or  its  scaffolds. 
Doubt,  and  suffering,  and  selfishness  abound.  Com- 
mercial speculations,  founded  in  sheer  fraud,  collapse 
and  bury  the  trusting  multitude  in  their  ruins.  Life 
must  be  for  most  of  our  population  a  constant  struggle 
against  starvation.  The  complaints  against  our  present 
social  condition  come  not  from  Christian  writers  onl}^, 
but  from  social  reformers  of  every  degree  and  creed."- 

Tlie  relations  of  man  to  nature  are  likewise  "  out  of 
joint."  TJie  high  purposes  that  the  soul  is  able  to  con- 
ceive are  thwarted  by  the  body.  Hereditary  indolence, 
or  temper,  or  desire,  stands  across  the  path ;  and  men 
despair  when  they  me.asure  their  meagre  performance 
with  their  high  ]u'omise,  and  find  too  often  the  evil  habit 
growing  on  them  and  checking  their  pace,  as  the  chee- 
tah pulls  down  the  running  deer.  And  the  bodily  or- 
ganism, crippled  at  the  outset  with  the  faults  perhaps 
of  a  former  generation,  breaks  down  prematurely ;  and 
^'  the  night  when  no  man  can  work"  overtakes  the  pil- 
grim when  morn  has  scarcely  passed. 

But  the  third  effect  of  tlie  curse  is  worse  than  these  ; 
the  relation  between  God  and  man  is  broken  by  sin. 
"  Sin  is  a  great  ditch  and  wall,  dividing  us  from  God.'-f 
The  law  of  God  is  lost,  and  the  soul  becomes  dark  and 
self-seeking,  and  without  purposes  of  good.  Sometimes 
extravagant  and  nameless  horrors  of  vice  show  what 
man  without  God  may  be  capable  of::j:  but  always  the 
want  of  God  has  been  accompanied  by  want  of  love  and 
of  good  purposes  and  of  self-government.  And  tlie 
wages  of  sin  have  been  death ;  a  death  of  the  spirit  in 
men  that  seemed  to  live. 

5.  Now  it  is  idle  to  discuss  wliethcr  we  ought  to  say 

*  For  example,  sec  the  opening  chapter  of  Buchcz,  *  Science  de  I'llistoire.' 
t  Thcophylact.  iu  Luc.  14.  %  liom.  i.  28.     Gal.  v.  I'J. 


Essay  VIII.]  THE  DEATH  OF  CHKIST.  4^3 

that  our  Lord  "became  a  curse  for  us,  if  we  have  not  ex- 
hausted the  direct  evidence  of  what  lie  became  and 
suffered  for  us.  Did  He  or  did  He  not  put  His  neck 
nnder  the  yoke  of  this  cm'se  and  bear  His  share  of  it? 

Did  He  ckaim  any  social  exemption  ?  He  accepted 
the  evils  of  poverty  ;  it  followed  Him  from  the  manger 
to  the  carpenter's  workshop,  to  the  wilderness.  For 
thirty  years  He  dwelt  with  a  family  that  did  not  under- 
stand Him,  in  a  city  that  despised  Him  and  would  rebel 
against  His  first  efforts  to  teach.  His  conversation  was 
not  among  scholars'^'  nor  statesmen  ;  but  with  lepers  and 
lunatics,  with  halt  and  maimed,  with  men  afflicted  and 
possessed.  All  the  sufferings  of  our  social  state,  all  that 
makes  the  aspect  of  society  painful  to  a  feeling  heart, 
were  brought  around  Him,  and  He  showed  no  repug- 
nance. The  twelve  whom  He  chose  for  His  friends,  to 
receive  His  constant  teaching,  were  dull  scholars,  who 
knew  Him  not,  even  to  the  end.  At  last  a  disciple  be- 
trayed Him  ;  the  priest  of  His  Father  pronounced  that 
it  was  good  that  He  should  die  for  the  people ;  the 
Prince  of  the  chosen  people  was  d'elivered  up  by  them 
to  the  Gentiles,  and  put  to  death;  and  His  disciples 
fled  in  terror  from  His  side. 

But  it  is  to  be  observed  that,  even  if  the  death  of 
our  Lord  had  not  taken  place,  even  if  He  had  ascended 
in  glory  without  being  put  to  death  in  shame,  it  would 
have  been  true  that  He  became  a  curse  for  us.  In 
point  of  justice  there  would  be  no  question  of  degree  ; 
and  even  if  there  had  been  no  death,  that  Jesus  should 
have  suffered  even  one  look  of  scorn  from  some  proud 
IS'azarene  who  knew  him  as  the  carpenter's  son,  and 
this  on  our  account,  would  involve  the  whole  discussion 
of  the  Divine  justice.  The  sinless  and  the  just  has  suf- 
fered something  which  He  did  not  deserve,  be  it  little 
or  great.  It'  we  are  so  rash  as  to  impugn  the  Divine 
justice  at  all,  understanding  it  so  little,  we  must  begin 
before  the  cross,  with  the  first  indignity,  with  the  first 
pressure  of  earthly  want.  It  is,  perhajis,  natural  that 
the  shocking  discrepancy  between  the  Divine  sufferer 

*  Luke  iv.  28.] 


414  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  YIIL 

and  the  mode  of  His  deatli  should  sliock  our  sense  of 
justice  more  than  all  that  had  gone  before;  because 
death  awakens  our  sympathies  more  powerfully  than 
the  less  harrowing  incidents  of  a  life  of  hardship.  But 
if  we  are  to  appeal  to  a  metaphysical  theory  of  Divine 
justice,  we  must  analyze  our  facts  more  exactly;  and 
then  one  of  our  first  admissions  must  be,  that  if  it  is 
unjust  to  slay  it  is  unjust  to  smite  or  to  degrade.  And 
in  order  to  set  our  theory  going,  we  shall  have  to  soften 
with  docetic  glosses  not  only  the  account  of  the  passion, 
but  that  of  the  whole  life  of  the  Eedeemer. 

But  he  tastes  also  the  bitterness  of  death.  Death 
came  by  disobedience ;  and  the  fear  of  death,  and  of 
all  the  possible  consequences  of  death,  has  been  one  of 
the  burdens  of  the  human  race  ever  since.  "  Through 
fear  of  deatli"  men  "were  all  their  lifetime  subject 
unto  bondage."  *  One  who  should  be  exempt  from  the 
fear  of  deatli  would  not  bear  the  whole  burden  of  man's 
condition.  How  far  was  the  Iledeemer  partaker  of 
this  fear?  Perhaps  it  is  difficult  to  sever  the  dread  of 
death  from  the  burden  of  sin  which  was  in  death  to  be 
born ;  but  towards  the  close  of  the  history  we  see  the 
Eedeemer  girding  Himself  for  the  terrible  suffering, 
"  steadfastly  setting  his  face  to  go  to  Jerusalem,"t  ex- 
pressing His  state  of  pain  until  the  baptism  that  He 
must  be  baptized  with  could  be  accomplished.:!:  Tears 
had  fallen  from  His  eyes  at  seeing  the  stroke  of  death 
take  effect  on  Lazarus  his  friend;  and  from  the  thought 
of  His  own  death  there  was  that  shrinking  which  be- 
longs to  a  man.  He  shared  our  curse  in  tasting  the 
bitterness  of  death. 

And  with  the  thought  of  death  must  have  mingled 
a  still  more  gloomy  thought — the  sense  of  the  weight 
of  sin.  It  is  at  this  point  that  some  will  cease  to  go 
along  with  us.  That  any  true  feeling  of  sin,  as  of  a 
burden  on  His  own  spirit,  can  ever  have  belonged  to 
Jesus,  is  what  some,  careful  for  the  lionour  of  their 
Lord,  will  not  admit.  Let  us  refrain  from  theories  on 
such  a  subject  on  both  sides.    But  there  are  two  places 

*  Heb.  ii.  15.  t  Matt.  x.  S2.  X  Luke  xii.  50. 


Essay  VIII.]  THE  DEATH  OF  CUEIST.  4^5 

of  the  Gospel  history  that  cannot  be  understood  except 
on  the  supposition  that  sin  and  the  power  of  darkness 
were  suffered  to  press  upon  Ilim  with  a  terrible  weiglit. 
The   scene   in    Gethsemane   is   one   which   Christians 
w^ould  fain  keep  out  of  their  disputes ; '""  yet  it  is  de- 
scribed for  our  instruction,  and  we  must  venture  to  enter 
there.   And  it  seems  to  me  that  those  who  would  place 
all  the  import  of  the  Lord's  death  in  its  being  a  heroic 
termination  of  a  heroic  and  devout  life,  and  an  example 
of  a  faith  true  to  itself  even  in  extremity,  receive  undor 
these  olive-trees  their  most  comj^lete  refutation.     For, 
first,  the  Redeemer  here  a^Dpeare  harrowed  by  a  misery 
which  many  a  martyr  has  been  free  from,  utterly  per- 
turbed by  a  prospect  which  a  Stephen,  an  Ignatius,  a 
Ridley  viewed  without  dismay.    If  no  more  than  death 
is  in  question,  w^e  should  expect  an  example  of  calm 
reliance  on  the  present  help  of  God.     But  w^e  find  the 
unaccountable  agony,  tlie  bloody  sweat,  the  prayer  for 
deliverance:  all  fortifying  and  calming  influences  seem 
withdrawn  for  a  time  from  Him  who  through  His  life 
so  constantly  enjoyed  them.     "We  are  astonished  that 
the  curse  of  our  race  should  be  suffered  to  ]3ress  in  all 
its  terrible  reality  upon  the  sinless  and  divine  Son.   Yet 
there  is  the  description  of  His  great  struggle.    We  can- 
not refuse  to  see  that  it  relates  to  One  utterly  broken 
down  for  a  time  in  a  wretcliedness  beyond  our  concep- 
tion, a  prey  to  thoughts  wdiich,  judging  by  their  out- 
ward effects,  were  far  darker  than  those  of  tlie  felon  the 
night  before  his  execution,  when  He  counts  [the  quar- 
ters of  each  hour,  and  hears  the  hammers  that  are  busy 
at  his  scaffold.    If  our  salvation  is  to  be  made  an  easier 
work,  if  the  price  paid  is  to  be  abated,  we  must  forget 
Gethsemane  or  deny  it.f     But  if  we  believe  with  the 

*  "A  feeling  always  seizes  mc,"  says  Krummachcr,  "  as  if  it  were  unbe- 
coming to  act  as  a  spy  on  the  Son  of  the  living  God  in  His  last  secret 
transactions  with  His  heavenly  Father ;  anc^  tliat  a  sinful  eye  ventures  too 
much  in  daring  to  look  upon  a  scene  in  which  the  Lord  appears  in  such  a 
state  of  weakness  and  abandonment  that  places  Him  on  tne  same  footing 
with  the  most  miserable  among  men." 

t  Mr.  Garden,  whose  theory  is  that  the  Lord  would  never  have  felt  misery, 
is  here  consistent.  He  forgets  Gethsemane  altogether :  he  quotes  only  our 
Lord's  words  upon  the  Cross. — Tracts,  «Scc.,  p.  10. 


416  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  VIII. 

Apostle  that  "  God  hath  made  IIIiii  to  be  sin  for  us 
AVho  knew  no  sin,  that  we  might  be  made  the  right- 
eousness of  God  in  Ilim,"'^  then  the  terror  and  the 
agony  become  accountable.  All  the  inner  horror  of 
sin  is  revealed  to  Him.  Sin  in  its  nakedness  is  more 
horrible  than  death.  And  He  sees  it  as  it  is ;  the 
blasphemous  self-worship  that  it  is,  the  revolt  against 
God,  the  violation  of  order,  the  death  in  life.  And  all 
this  sin  is  His,  though  He  is  sinless  of  it :  for  He  has 
thrown  in  His  lot  with  men,  and  has  proposed  to  Him- 
self the  task  of  breaking  down  this  foul  and  destroying 
tyranny.  The  mystery  of  that  agency  lies  in  the  com- 
pleteness of  His  humanity.  He  is  no  bystander,  watch- 
ing how  men  sin.  He  is  one  of  themselves,  but  with 
the  power  of  God  over  them  to  make  their  interests  His 
own.  In  Him,  as  God,  they  live,  and  move,  and  have 
their  being:  and  now  the  power  of  darkness  is  let  loose 
to  show  Him  all  the  sin  and  misery,  and  defiance  of 
God,  that  He,  by  clothing  Himself  with  human  nature, 
has  taken  into  His  bosom.  The  words  of  the  Lord  upon 
the  cross  are  an  echo  from  the  garden  of  agony;  "Why 
hast  Thou  forsaken  me?"  These  words  from  the 
twenty-second  Psalm,  uttered  at  such  a  moment,  are  of 
course  no  mere  ejaculation  of  pain  ;  they  recall  a  Psalm 
which,  as  any  one  may  see,  contains  matter  that  can 
apply  to  Messiah  only.  But  the  words  themselves  ex- 
press a  sense  of  desertion  by  God :  they  can  have  no 
other  meaning.  Yain  would  it  be  to  attempt  to  explain 
how  He,  one  with  the  Father,  and  never  severed  from 
Him  by  spot  or  stain  of  guilt,  could  have  admitted  such 
a  feeling.  But  there  are  the  words  :  we  dare  not  deny 
them.  They  belong  to  Him,  not  as  Son  of  God,  but 
as  burdened  with  the  sins  of  the  world.  They  express 
perhaps  the  complete  separation  which  sin  makes  be- 
tween man  and  God.  He  is  now  the  Advocate  of  all 
mankind ;  and  their  separation  from  God  because  of 
sin  extends  itself  to  Him  for  a  season.  It  appears,  then, 
that  the  question  whether  the  wrath  of  God  can  be  said 
to  have  fallen  upon  the  Son,  who  has  done  no  sin,  is  no 

*  2  Cor.  V.  21. 


Essay  VIIL]  THE  DEATH  OF  CHRIST.  42*? 

verbal  question,  but  a  question  of  fact.  Jesus  did  suf- 
fer all  those  things  which  are  the  evident  tokens  of 
wrath  against  us.  He  tried  the  sufferings  of  our  dis- 
jointed social  state  ;  He  knew  the  fear  of  death,  and  the 
anguish  of  sin  which  separates  from  God.  The  motives 
of  those  who  would  protect  his  name  from  the  sup- 
posed contamination  of  sin,  are  not  unworthy  of  respect. 
"  Be  it  far  from  thee,  Lord  !  "  came  from  one  who  loved 
his  Lord  sincerely;  but  "Get  thou  behind  me,  Satan!" 
was  the  answer  he  received.  When  the  Son  of  God  is 
minded,  of  His  own  free  w^ill  and  His  exceeding  love 
towards  our  race,  to  come  down  from  heaven,  and  in 
the  form  of  a  servant  to  explore  all  the  secrets  of  our 
vile  condition,  it  is  more  reverent  in  us  to  observe  and 
love  His  condescension,  than  to  say,  out  of  some  private 
text-book  of  moralit}^,  "  This  shall  not  be  unto  thee ! " 
The  mystery  of  evil  is  far  beyond  our  rules  and  meas- 
ures. There  must  be  a  cause  when  such  a  great  act 
of  condescension  had  to  be  done.  But  done  it  was; 
and  when  all  the  vials  of  wrath  were  poured  out  upon 
His  head,  and  when  He  did  not  shrink  from  receiving 
them,  it  is  idle  to  discuss  whether  this  shall  be  called 
wrath  or  love ;  when  He  smarted  under  all  that  we  call 
punishment,  it  is  idle  to  say  that  it  must  have  another 
name. 

But  you  that  are  so  jealous  lest  the  name  of  sin 
should  attach  to  the  sinless  One,  carry  the  jealousy  an- 
other step.  When  the  Pharisees  revile  and  the  Priests 
entrap  the  Lord,  and  w^hen  the  scourging,  and  the 
buffets,  and  the  spitting  mangle  and  defile  His  innocent 
frame,  you  think  that  nature  itself  should  give  tokens 
of  indignation.  And  yet,  how  close  to  God  sin  has  ever 
come!  how  sins  have  ever  polluted  and  defied  the 
world,  which  is  His  temple  !  and  you  have  not  con- 
ceived of  the  sins  in  that  light,  as  sins  that  touch  Him. 
When  a  man  slays  his  brother,  or  pollutes  the  virtuo 
of  a  women,  and  each  is  dear  to  the  Almighty  Maker, 
does  not  the  murderer  smite  God,  and  the  betrayer  spit 
upon  Him?  and  the  long-suffering  Ruler  of  the  world 
boars,  as  in  His  bosom,  all  our  wayward  sins,  and 
18* 


418  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  VIIL 

weaves  them  into  the  web  of  His  providence,  and  con- 
trives an  order  of  things  in  which  these  evil  elements 
may  work  and  not  destroy.  Jealous  of  the  Son's  con- 
tact with  sin,  can  we  not,  by  a  larger  reach  of  the  same 
morality,  conceive  that  the  Father's  contact  with,  and 
permission  of  sin,  is  a  profound  mystery?  Can  you 
not  see  in  this  fact  a  greater  hideousness  in  evil,  since 
every  day  that  it  is  permitted  seems  to  impugn  the 
justice  or  the  power  of  Him  who  could  abolish  every 
sin,  with  the  doers  of  it,  by  the  breath  of  His  mouth? 
If  so,  let  us  at  least  assent  to  the  position  that  a  disease 
so  utterly  past  our  comprehension  may  require  means 
to  cure  it  that  shock  the  ordinary  conclusions  of  our 
conscience ;  and  that  a  wider  view,  if  we  could  stand 
high  enough  to  take  it,  might  correct  our  crude  im- 
pressions. 

6.  The  doctrine  of  Atonement  is  many-sided,  as  all 
mysteries  are  when  we  try  to  express  them  in  the  forms 
of  human  thought.  And  no  doctrine  has  suffered  so 
much,  on  the  part  both  of  friend  and  foe,  from  a  one- 
sided treatment.  "It  has  been  said,  that  this  doctrine 
represents  the  Almighty  as  moved  with  fury  at  the 
insults  offered  to  His  Supreme  Majesty,  as  impatient  to 
pour  forth  His  fury  upon  some  being,  as  indifferent 
whether  that  being  deserves  it  or  not,  and  as  perfectly 
appeased  upon  finding  an  object  of  vengeance  in  His 
own  innocent  Son.  It  has  been  said,  that  a  doctrine 
which  represents  the  Almighty  as  sternly  demanding  a 
full  equivalent  for  that  which  was  due  to  Him,  and  as 
receiving  that  equivalent  in  the  sufferings  of  His  Son, 
transfers  all  the  affection  and  gratitude  of  the  human 
face  from  an  inexorable  Being,  who  did  not  remit  any 
part  of  His  right,  to  another  being  who  satisfied  His 
claim.  It  has  been  said,  that  a  translation  of  guilt  is 
impossible,  because  guilt  is  personal ;  and  that  a  doc- 
trine which  represents  the  innocent  as  punished  instead 
of  the  guilty,  and  the  guilty  as  escaping  by  this  punish- 
ment, contradicts  the  first  principles  of  justice,  subverts 
all  our  ideas  of  a  righteous  government,  and,  by  hold- 
ing forth  an  example  of  reward  and  punishment  dis- 


Essay VIII.]  THE  DEATH  OF  CIIEIBT.  4^9 

pensed  by  Heaven,  without  any  regard  to  the  character 
of  those  who  receive  them,  docs  encourage  men  to  hve 
as  they  please.""^"  So  the  objections  were  summed  up 
many  years  since,  and  there  is  little  to  alter  after  the 
recent  controversy.  Now,  most  of  these  objections 
have  arisen  from  a  crude  and  one-sided  way  of  stating 
the  doctrine  on  the  part  of  its  friends,  and  disappear 
when  all  the  elements  of  the  truth  are  taken  in.  Sin 
exists  ;  and  therewith  must  enter  a  host  of  contradic- 
tions. Sin  is  that  which  turns  the  love  of  God  into 
wrath ;  not  into  the  passion  of  wrath  as  men  feel  it,  but 
to  the  intention  of  visiting  with  punishment.  "With  sin, 
the  face  of  God  is  altered  against  us  and  turned  away. 
We  know  the  theological  objections  to  this  mode  of 
speaking,  but  there  is  no  other  open  to  us.  God  can- 
not change ;  but  yet  His  purpose  towards  us  is  changed 
in  its  workings  by  ourselves.  And  this  enormous  power 
all  classes  of  Christians  assign  to  sin,  that  it  can  dam 
up  and  divert  the  current  of  Divine  love,  that  set  so 
strongly  towards  us.  We  are  obliged  to  pick  our  ex- 
pressions, whenever  we  touch  the  subject,  lest  sin  itself 
should  be  laid  to  the  account  of  Him  who  is  the  gov- 
ernor of  the  world,  and  suflers  sin  in  the  world.  Sin 
turns  love  to  wrath,  the  life  of  our  souls  to  the  death 
of  them,  our  light  to  darkness,  our  free  adherence  to 
God  to  enmity  against  Him.  From  this  view  of  sin,  as 
something  w^hich  is  suffered  to  thwart  the  free  work- 
ings of  God's  love,  and  which  casts  shadows  as  of  the 
darkness  of  Gethsemane  over  all  the  scenes  of  history, 
where  evil  is  suffered  to  come  in  and  overcloud  the 
good,  there  is  no  escape  except  in  the  pantheistic  view, 
which  reads  all  sin  and  evil  as  good  in  a  transition 
state.  And  against  that  view  conscience  will  ever  pro- 
test ;  for  it  is  the  best  proof  of  our  still  retaining  ves- 
tiges of  good  that  conscience  finds  all  the  suggestions 
of  physiological  materialists,  and  of  metaj^hysical  pan- 
theists, powerless  to  lull  to  sleep  the  sense  of  individual 
guilt,  which  yet  she  has  so  strong  an  interest  in  getting 

*  Rev.  Dr.  Hill's  Lectures,  b.  iv.,  ch.  3,  quoted  by  Dr.  Candlish. 


420  ^'^^^   TO   FAITH.  [Essay  VIII. 

rid  of.  To  remove  sin  and  its  consequences  God  sent 
His  Son,  the  Eternal  AVord  of  the  Father,  to  become 
truly  man  as  He  was  truly  God,  and  to  mediate  between 
men  and  Him  for  their  relief.  It  is  not  true,  whatever 
friend  or  foe  shall  say  it,  that  God  looked  forth  on  His 
works  to  find  some  innocent  man  able  and  willing  to 
bear  the  weight  of  His  wrath,  and  found  Jesus  and 
punished  Him.  It  is  all  false,  because  it  is  only  half 
true.  The  Son  of  God  took  our  nature  upon  Him,  and 
therewith  the  sins  of  it,  at  least  in  their  consequences ; 
not  because  He  became  one  man  among  many,  but  be- 
cause when  God  takes  man's  nature  He  still  has  divine 
right  and  power  over  all,  and  so  manhood  is  taken  into 
God.  That  sinfulness  should  press  upon  the  Son  of 
God,  in  any  of  its  consequences,  revolts  us  at  first ;  nay, 
it  was  intended  to  revolt  us  and  thereby  to  secure  our 
repentance  :  and  jealous  for  His  honour  we  protest  that 
of  sin  He  shall  know  nothing.  Yes  :  but  we  have  been 
flaunting  our  sins  in  the  face  of  the  Father,  to  His  dis- 
pleasure, ever  since  we  were  born  ;  using  the  limbs  He 
makes  and  keeps  strong,  for  purposes  of  lust  and  vio- 
lence; quickening  the  pulses  that  He  controls,  with 
draughts  of  passionate  excitement :  in  a^word,  sinning 
before  God's  face  and  under  His  hand.  Is  it  less  shock- 
ing that  sin  should  be  in  the  world  which  is  God's,  than 
that  it  should  be  in  the  manhood  which  is  Christ's  ? 
No  :  both  before  and  after  the  incarnation  sin  is  a  con- 
tradiction ;  and  it  is  less  difficult  to  conceive  sin  taken 
by  the  Son  upon  Himself  for  a  time  and  by  way  of 
remedy,  than  it  is  to  understand  it  as  suflered  by  the 
Father  always  as  a  permitted  destruction.  The  punish- 
ment in  this  transaction  falls  on  the  innocent.  And  we 
are  told  that  such  a  doctrine  is  cruel,  unjust,  and  use- 
less :  cruel,  because  it  punishes  where  it  could  forgive  ; 
useless,  because  it  misses  the  true  end  of  punishment 
in  striking  the  guiltless,  which  can  never  deter  from 
guilt;  and  unjust,  because  it  falls  on  one  who  knows 
no  sin.  But  it  is  not  cruel,  if  it  thereby  marks  for  ever 
the  enormity  of  sin  which  needed  such  a  sacrifice;  it  is 
not  useless,  if  it  changed  the  relation  of  man  to  God, 


EsbatVIII.]  the  death  OF  CUEIST.  421 

and  if  in  fact  it  has  ever  since  been  turning  men  to 
holiness  and  "  drawing  all  men  nnto"  Jesus  ;""'^  and  it  is 
not  unjust,  because  the  Father's  will  to  punish  never 
outstripped  the  Son's  to  suffer,  and  because  His  death 
was  a  solemn  offering  of  Himself  in  love,  for  man's  re- 
demption. E'er  can  there  be  any  tendency  to  transfer 
from  the  severe  Father  to  the  loving  Son,  the  love  we 
owe  to  both ;  for  the  mode  of  our  redemption  was  de- 
signed by  both,  and  the  Son  adopts  the  Father's  and 
the  Father  sanctions  the  Son's  loving  self-sacrifice. 
]Nor  is  there  the  least  pretext  for  saying  that  this  doc- 
trine encourages  men  to  live  as  they  please,  by  holding 
forth  the  spectacle  of  rewards  earned  for  those  wdio  do 
not  deserve  them  and  punishments  warded  ofi'  from 
those  who  deserve  them  well :  since  the  blood  of  the 
Redeemer,  all-sufficient  as  it  is  to  cleanse  the  sins  of 
the  world,  saves  from  wrath  only  those  who  repent  and 
turn  to  Him.  The  power  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Atone- 
ment has  been  felt  wherever  the  Gospel  has  come.  It 
has  carried  comfort  to  sinners  where  nothing  else  could 
do  so.  Wherever  the  conviction  of  sin  has  been  deep- 
est, the  power  of  the  Cross  has  been  most  conspicuous ; 
and  this  in  the  face  of  objections  which  it  was  not  left 
to  modern  times  to  suggest,  against  such  a  punishment 
for  such  a  deliverer.  Let  it  slill  be  preached  ;  and  our 
lesson  from  these  controversies  be  that  we  preach  the 
whole  of  it,  so  far  as  Scripture  informs  and  our  mind 
comprehends.  Let  us  not  so  exalt  the  justice  of  God 
that  we  seem  to  recoi'd  the  harshness  of  a  tyrant,  and 
not  the  device  of  a  Father  seeking  to  bring  His  children 
back.  Let  us  not  so  dwell  on  the  love  of  Christ  as  to 
forget  that  one  great  moral  purpose  of  this  sacrifice 
Avas  to  set  the  mark  of  God  s  indignation  upon  sin. 
Let  jis  not  so  oflfer  the  benefits  of  the  Cross  to  our  peo- 
ple as  to  lose  sight  of  it  as  a  means  of  their  crucifying 
their  own  flesh  and  dying  to  their  own  sins.  He  bare 
our  sins  in  His  own  body  on  the  tree ;  He  is  our  ran- 
som', our  propitiation  ;  He  is  made  sin  for  us;  because 

*  John  xii.  32. 


422  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  VIII. 

God  is  just.  He  laid  down  His  life  for  the  sheep,  out 
of  love,  and  God  so  loved  the  world  that  He  gave  Him 
for  this  labour ;  because  God  is  love :  and  we  are  to 
run  with  patience  the  race  that  is  set  before  us,  looking 
unto  Jesus  the  Author  and  Finisher  of  our  faith ;  be- 
cause the  work  of  justice  and  love  has  restored  us  to 
our  position  of  moral  freedom  and  moral  life,  and  we 
must  live  as  the  redeemed  servants  of  our  Lord. 


ESSAY    IX. 

SCEIPTURE,  AND   ITS   INTEEPEETATIOK. 


CONTENTS  OF  ESSAY  IX. 


Sect.  1.  The  alleged  vabiations  in 
THE  Interpretation  of  Sckip- 
TUBE,  p.  425. 

1.  Introductory   comments  and    defini- 

tions. 

2.  Present  attitudes  and  expectations. 

3.  Amount  of    varying   interpretations 

much  exaggerated — as  slaown  by, 
first,  Ancient  and  modern  versions  ; 
secondhj.  Comparison  of  earlier  and 
later  expositions. 

4.  Literal  and  historical  mode  of  inter- 

pretation adopted  from  the  first. 

5.  Eecapitulation. 

Sect.  2.  The  CnAEACTcmsTics  of  Scrip- 
ture, p.  445. 

C.  Differences  of  interpretation  in  de- 
tails. 

7.  This  diversity  in  unity  to  be  account- 

ed for— I.  By  the  difference  of  the 
Bible  from  every  other  book. — II. 
By  the  fact  that  Scripture  often  in- 
volves more  than  one  meaning: — as 
shown  by  (1)  Applications  of  pro- 
phecy, (2)  Types,  (H)  Deeper  mean- 
ings, even  in  historical  passages. — 
III.  By  the  fact  that  Scripture  is 
divinely  inspired, 

8.  Examination  of  the  assertions  of  op- 

ponents concerning  the  Inspiration 
of  Scripture,  as  regards,  first,  the 
Testimony  of  Scripture  in  reference 
to  itself;  secondly,  the  Statements 
of  the  Early  Church ;  thirdly,  the 
Subjective  testimony. 

9.  Affirmative  observations  upon  Inspi- 

ration— Considerations    concerning, 


first,  its  Mode;  secondly,  its  Lim- 
its; thirdly,  ita  Degree. 

10.  Eecapitulation. 

Sect.  3.  General  Eules  of  Interpre- 
tation, p.  4S0. 

11.  Preliminary      comments — Duty     of 

Prayer — Necessity  for  candour. 

12.  Eules  for  the  Interpretation  of  Scrip- 

ture.— 1st  Eule — Interpret  gram- 
onaticallij — Examples.  2nd  Eule — 
Interpret  historically — Examples. 
3rd  VMlc—Interj^rct  contextiudly — 
Examples.  4th  Eule — Interpret 
oninutely — Examples.  Failure  of 
these  rules  in  cases  of  difficulty. 
Gradual  emergence  of  supplemen- 
tary rules.  5th  Eule — Interpret  ac- 
cording to  the  analogy  of  faith. 

13.  Concluding  observations. 

Sect.  4.  The  Application  of  Scripture, 
p.  513. 

14.  Application  of    Scripture  considered 

in  reference  to,  I.  Prophecy  and 
Typology— II.  Second  and  deeper 
meanings — III.  Practical  and  spe- 
cial deductions. 

Sect.  5.  Grammar  and   the    laws  of 
THE  letter,  p.  522. 

15.  Introductory  remarks. 

IG.  General  character  of  the  language  of 
the  New  Testament,  as  compared 
with  earlier  and  later  Greek. 
Peculiarities  as  shown  in  details,  es- 
pecially in  reference  to  (1)  the  Arti- 
cle, (2)  Substantives.  (3)  Ycrbs,  (4) 
Prepositions,  (5)  Particles. 

18.  Conclusion. 


17. 


SCRIPTURE,   AND   ITS   INTERPRETATION. 


§1- 

1.  It  can  hardly  be  considered  strange  that  great 
differences  of  opinion  should  exist  respecting  the  inter- 
pretation of  Scripture.  When  we  consider  the  nature 
of  the  Sacred  Writings,  their  number,  their  variety,  the 
different  epochs  to  which  they  belong,  and  the  vast  pe- 
riod of  time  over  which  they  extend,  we  can  hardly  be 
surprised  to  find  the  opinions  concerning  the  interpre- 
tation of  the  Yolume  into  which  they  are  collected  not 
only  to  be  various,  but  even  conflicting.  When  we 
turn  from  the  outward  to  the  inward,  and  ponder  over 
"that  inexhaustible  and  infinite  character'^  of  the  Sa- 
cred Writings,  which  even  the  better  portion  of  our  op- 
ponents are  not  unwilling  to  concede, — when  w^e  observe 
that  "  depth  and  inwardness,"  which,  it  has  been  rightly 
considered,  require  something  corres2:)onding  in  the  in- 
terpreter himself, — w^hen  we  reverentially  recognize 
throughout  the  Volume  references  alike  to  the  past,  the 
present,  and  the  future ;  teachings  in  history  only  partly 
realised,  lessons  in  prophecy  "not  yet  learned  even  in 
theory,"  germs  of  truth  w^hich,  w^e  are  told,  have  yet  to 
take  root  in  the  w^orld, — when  we  consider  all  this,  are 
we  to  wonder  that  differences  of  opinion  exist  concern- 
ing the  interpretation  of  a  volume  so  ancient,  so  won- 
drous, and  so  multiform  ? 

It  would  indeed  be  strange  if  it  had  been  otherwise; 
it  would  be  a  phenomenon  in  the  literary  or  mental  his- 
tory of  Christianity  not  easy  to  account  for,  if  expound- 
ers of  Scripture  had  been  found  always  accordant  in 
their  views ;  nay,  it  may  even  be  considered  a  subject 
for  surprise,  though  for  thankfulness,  that  the  diller- 


426  -^1^9  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  IX 

ences  of  opinion  abont  the  interpretation  of  a  volume 
sucli  as  we  have  described  are  not  greater  than  we  find 
them  to  be. 

"When,  however,  we  are  thus  speaking  of  the  differ- 
ences of  opinion  respecting  the  interpretation  of  Scrip- 
ture (and  we  are  using  the  language  of  opponents),  let 
us,  from  the  very  outset,  agree  to  avoid  all  ambiguities 
in  language.  Let  us  be  careful  not  to  fall  into  an  error 
which  we  may  fairly  impute  to  those  with  whom  we 
are  contending, — the  error,  to  choose  the  mildest  expres- 
sion, of  using  terms  of  a  vague  and  undefined  charac- 
ter, and,  as  the  sequel  will  show,  of  a  somewhat  conven- 
ient elasticity.  What  do  we  mean  by  differences  re- 
specting the  interpretation  of  Scripture?  We  may 
mean  two  things.  Either  we  may  mean  that  there 
have  been  difierences  of  opinion  about  the  meanings 
of  the  actual  words  of  Scripture,  or  we  may  mean  that 
there  have  been  differences  of  opinion  about  the  man- 
ner in  which  those  meanings  have  been  obtained.  We 
may  include  both  if  we  choose  in  the  same  form  of 
words,  but  in  so  doing  let  us  not  fail  to  apprise  the 
reader,  and  in  conducting  the  argument  let  us  act  with 
fairness.  Let  us  be  careful  to  recognize  the  clear  logi- 
cal difference  between  these  two  meanings,  and  avoid 
that  really  culpable  method  of  dealing  with  a  momen- 
tous subject  which  does  not  scruple  to  mix  up  illus- 
trations or  arguments  derived  from  one  of  its  aspects 
with  those  which  really  and  plainly  belong  to  the  other. 
There  may  have  been  from  the  very  first  many  methods 
of  interpreting  Scripture  ;  allegory  may  have  prevailed 
in  one  age,  mysticism  in  another ;  scholastic  methods 
of  interpretation  may  have  been  succeeded  by  rhetori- 
cal, and  these  again  may  both  have  given  place  to 
methods  in  which  grammar  and  history  may  have 
borne  a  more  prominent  part.  All  this  may  have  been 
so,  but  it  still  does  not  necessarily  follow  that  the  mean- 
ings actually  assigned  to  any  given  text  have  been  as 
manifold  or  as  discordant  as  the  methods  which  may 
have  been  adopted  to  obtain  them.  The  modes  and 
principles  of  interpretation  may  have  been  very  dififer- 


Essay  IX.J  8CEIPTURE,  AND  ITS  INTERPEETxiTION.  427 

eat,  and  yet,  in  tlie  main,  tliey  may  liav^e  led  to  very 
accordant  results.  Siicli  a  probability,  however,  is  now 
somewhat  studiously  passed  over  in  silence,  or  men- 
tioned only  to  be  dismissed  as  unworthy  of  serious  con- 
sideration. The  object,  we  fear,  is  to  create  anxiety 
and  uneasiness,  to  unfix  and  to  unloosen,  to  awaken  a 
general  feeling  of  distrust  in  current  interpretations, 
and,  in  the  case  of  doctrinal  statements  and  every  form 
of  exposition  that  involves  a  reference  to  the  analogy 
of  faith,  to  arouse  even  hostility  and  antagonism.  This 
has  been  done  of  late,  as  we  have  already  implied,  by 
a  judicious  combination  of  two  methods  of  proceeding, 
— on  the  one  hand,  by  calling  attention  to  the  discord- 
ances of  interpretation  in  a  few  extreme  cases  where 
such  discordance  is  sure  to  be  a  maximum;  on  the 
other,  by  dwelling  exclusively  on  the  varieties  of  the 
different  systems  and  methods  of  interpretation,  and 
leaving  it  to  be  inferred  that  the  results  arrived  at  are 
as  various  and  diversified  as  the  methods  by  which 
they  have  been  obtained.  In  a  w^ord,  such  a  phenom- 
enon as  a  Catholic  interpretation,  substantially  the 
same  under  all  systems  but  varied  only  in  details  or  ap- 
plication, is  assumed  to  be  an  exegetical  impossibility. 
The  true  state  of  the  case  we  are  told  is  this, — that 
Scripture  has  had  every  possible  variety  of  meaning 
assigned  to  it,  that  it  has  been  understood  to  say  this 
to  one  age  and  that  to  another,  that  all  hitherto  has 
been  conflict  or  uncertainty.  We  learn,  however,  that 
now  a  better  era  is  dawning ;  that  a  fundamental  prin- 
ciple, viz.,  that  Scripture  has  one  meaning  and  one 
meaning  only,  has  at  length  clearly  been  made  out ; 
and  that  a  little  "free-handling,"  a  few  assumptions, 
and  a  free  use  of  a  so-called  "  verifying  faculty,"  will 
finally  adjust  all  difficulties  and  discordances  in  the  in- 
ter]) retation  of  the. Book  of  Life. 

There  is  obviously  something  very  attractive  in  all 
this.  There  is  a  fascination  in  the  whole  procedure 
that  imperfectly  disciplined  or  w^illingly  sceptical  minds 
find  it  impossible  to  resist.  There  is  the  charm  of  the 
alleged  discovery  that  criticism  at  last  has  made,  the 


426  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  IX. 

attractiveness  of  the  generalization,  the  variety  of  the 
modes  of  applying  the  principle  so  as  to  meet  all  needs, 
whether  of  the  reader,  tlie  preacher,  the  missionary, 
the  teacher,  or  the  interpreter, — and  then  the  retro- 
spect, the  backward  look  of  serene  triumph  over  the  ac- 
cumulated errors  and  prejudices  of  eighteen  long  Chris- 
tian centuries,  all  chased  away  by  the  brightness  of  this 
second  Eeformation  and  the  "burst  of  intellectual  life" 
that  is  at  last  becoming  visible  above  the  clouded  hori- 
zon of  Scriptural  interpretation.  One  topmost  stone, 
and  the  monument  of  our  exegetical  successes  must  be 
pronounced  complete.  Philosophy  and  Theology  claim 
of  us,  we  are  told,  as  of  value  to  themselves  a  history 
of  the  past.  Be  it  so.  Let  ns  take  the  pen  of  the  his- 
torian and  sit  down  and  trace  the  record  of  our  own 
mental  supremacy  in  a  history  of  the  prejudices  and 
errors  of  the  Exegesis  of  the  past.  Let  ns  show  by 
this  tacit  comparison  how  "great  names  must  be  ac- 
counted small,"  how  few  ever  "  bent  their  mind  to  in- 
terrogate the  meaning  of  words,"  how  men  who  were 
accounted  benefactors  of  the  human  race  have  yet  only 
left  to  us  the  heritage  of  erring  fancies  and  party-bias, 
— let  ns  write  the  history  of  all  this  littleness,  confu- 
sion, and  bondage  to  the  letter,  and  the  fabric  of  our 
own  greatness,  harmony,  and  intellectual  freedom  will 
appear  by  the  contrast  only  the  more  stately  and 
unique. 

Such  is  the  dream  of  the  present.  Such,  stated  in 
no  exaggerated  or  unkindly  terms,  is  the  course  which 
men  whose  general  goodness  and  high  principles  we 
have  no  cause  to  doubt  or  deny  are  now  inviting  us  to 
follow.  What  are  we  to  say  of  all  this  ?  The  comment 
rises  to  the  lips,  but  we  suppress  it.  We  may  feel,  per- 
haps, that  as  in  Corinth  of  old  so  now  in  nineteenth- 
century  England,  vain  knowledge  may  puff  up,  yet  re- 
membering that  "love  edifieth,"  we  sit  by  silent  and 
wondering,  even  though  the  fire  is  kindling  within,  and 
silence  is  becoming  a  pain  and  a  grief  to  us.  At  first 
perhaps  we  prepare  to  answer  the  call  to  join  the  wise 
and  tranquil  few.  who,  knowing  that  the  Eternal  Spirit 


Essay  IX.]  SCKIPTUKE,  AND  ITS   INTEErEETATION.  429 

lias  been  ever  present  "with  the  Cluircli,  and  tliat  wliat 
things  were  written  aforetime  were  written,  not  for  our 
contempt  but  for  our  learning,  smile  pensively  at  these 
childish  exultations  and  straw-woven  crowns,  and  see 
in  them  only  one  more  of  the  premature  triumphs,  that 
have  been  claimed  for  some  shifting  form  of  the  errors 
or  heresies  of  the  time.  "We  feel  tempted  to  join  this 
quiet  company,  and  calmly  to  smile  as  they  alone  can 
smile  whose  feet  stand  within  the  sheltering  walls  of 
the  City  of  God,  and  whose  faith  is  that  which  was  not 
only  delivered  but  handed  down  to  the  saints  in  each 
age  of  the  Church  of  Christ.  YT'hat  can  we  do  bnt 
smile,  when  we  recognize  old  quibbles  and  difficulties 
all  mustered  up  again,  disguised  in  new  trappings,  and 
arranged  in  new  combinations, — but  yet  the  same,  the 
very  same  that  have  been  dispersed  a  hundred  times 
over,  and  wliicli  the  very  generation  to  which  we  now 
belong  wdll  see  dispersed  again,  though  it  may  be  to 
ally  themselves  finally  with  powers  and  principles  of 
which  at  present  they  are  only  permitted  to  act  as  the 
scout  and  the  courier  ? 

But  with  this  last  thought  the  smile  Aules  away. 
"When  we  remember  that  the  forms  of  error  which  of 
late  have  been  reappearing  among  us  may  belong,  con- 
sciously or  unconsciously,  to  the  great  apostasy  of  the 
future, — when  we  observe  how  they  instmctively  asso- 
ciate themselves  with  masked  or  avowed  denyings  of 
the  Divinity  of  our  blessed  Lord,  and  of  the  full  effi- 
cacy of  His  sacrifice, — when  we  mark  how  their  vani- 
ties and  self-confidences  bear  a  strange  family  likeness 
to  that  Pelagian  pride  in  the  perfectibility  of  our  cor- 
rupted nature  which  tears  open  the  wounds  of  a  cruci- 
fied Lord  more  heartlessly  than  the  hands  that  first  in- 
flicted them, — when  we  ponder  over  that  pufied  up  and 
unyoked  spirit  of  the  day  that  is  now  calling  on  us  to 
clear  away  the  remains  of  dogmas  and  controversies, 
and  when  we  see,  as  we  must  see,  with  a  shudder,  that 
it  is  but  the  harbinger  of  him  who  is  to  set  himself 
against  everything  "  that  is  called  God  or  that  is  wor- 
shipped" (2  Thess.  ii.  4), — then  it  docs  seem  our  duty 


430  -^IDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  IX. 

to  play  our  part  in  the  great  controversy,  to  quit  our- 
selves like  men,  and  to  strive  with  all  Christian  ear- 
nestness, with  stern  brow  yet  with  true  and  loving 
heart,  to  rescue  the  endangered  souls  of  our  own  time 
and  age,  and  to  bring  them  back  into  tlie  City  of  God. 
2.  The  position  of  the  defender  of  the  faith  in  the 
present  day  is  that  of  one  whose  home  and  citizenship 
is  in  the  City  "  that  lieth  four-square,"  whose  builder 
and  whose  maker  is  God.  The  storm  of  battle  has  often 
raged  round  those  massive  walls,  wild  rout  and  turmoil 
have  often  striven  to  shake  those  solid  gates.  Pass- 
words have  been  tried  ;  treachery  has  played  its  das- 
tardly part, — but  all  stands  iirm  and  sure.  Tlie  rising 
sun  that  smites  on  the  broad  front  of  those  fair  walls 
and  towers,  beholds  them  as  stately  in  their  strength 
and  their  beauty  as  they  were  ever  of  old  ;  .the  shadows 
they  cast  when  day  declines  are  as  many  and  as  length- 
ened as  they  were  of  yore.  Who  within  would  wish 
to  see  a  stone  displaced,  who  would  fain  see  one  battle- 
ment laid  low  ?  Perhaps  none  who  are  really  and  truly 
within  the  circuit  of  those  sheltering  walls.  But  there 
are  voices  without  that  we  know  full  well,  voices  of 
those  with  whom  we  have  dwelt  as  friends,  whose  God 
has  been  our  God,  and  whose  Lord  has  been  our  Lord, 
— men  who  went  from  among  us  on  strange  missions, 
and  are  come  back  to  tell  ns  strange  tidings,  and  to 
bid  lis  do  strange  deeds.  That  beleaguering  host  whose 
flaunting  standards  we  can  see  on  every  wooded  knoll 
around,  and  wdiose  open  or  covert  assaults  our  fathers 
and  forefathers  have  experienced  so  often,  and  resisted 
so  sucessfully  and  so  long, — that  motley  eager  host  they 
tell  us  is  not  composed  of  foes  but  of  fncnds  and  well- 
wishers,  changed  by  civilization  and  the  glory  of  hu- 
man development,  eager  to  meet  us  as  kindred  and 
brothers  if  we  will  but  remove  the  envious  barriers 
that  separate  us,  relics  of  a  religious  feudalism,  as  they 
term  it,  long  passed  away.  Shall  creeds  sej^'arate 
brothers  ?  Shall  doctrines  divide  those  whom  unity 
of  race  and  shared  civilizations  plainly  declare  to  be 
one  and  inseparable  ?     Shall  vre  churlishly  strive  any 


Essay  IX.]  SCRIPTUllE,   AND   ITS   INTERPIiETATION,  43  j 

longer  to  stint  the  growth  of  tlic  ideal  man  ?  Shall 
the  orient  and  glowing  futnre  be  darkened  with  jealous- 
ies of  sects  and  rivalries  of  religions  ?  "  We  are  cou- 
riers," they  impetuously  cry  aloud ;  "  ambassadors, 
friends  of  both,  friends  of  truth,  •  friends  of  Christ. 
Unbar,  then,  these  envious  gates ;  down  with  these  un- 
friendly walls  ;  let  us  learn  from  each  other  the  great 
lesson  of  mutual  concessions,  and  so  at  last  realize  the 
great  hope  of  the  future,  the  fabled  restitution  of  theo- 
logians, and  at  last,  all  in  fraternal  triumph,  merge 
into  the  one  great  family  of  Truth  and  of  Love."  Such 
are  the  voices  now  sounding  in  our  ears ;  voices  that  the 
young  and  the  generous,  as  well  as  the  godless  and  the 
worldworn,  give  ear  to  with  ready  sympathy.  But  shall 
the  true  defenders  of  tlie  ark  of  tlieir  God,  that  ark  of 
the  Xew  Covenant  wherein  lie  the  written  words  of 
life,  yield  it  and  themselves  up  to  this  stratagem  which 
one  "  whose  time  is  short"  has  put  into  the  hearts  of 
unconscious  instruments?  ISTever.  God  defend  us 
from  such  fearful,  such  frantic  disloyalty  !  God  indeed 
forbid  that,  in  any  sense,  however  modified,  it  should 
hereafter  be  the  boast  of  the  spirits  of  perdition,  that 
it  was  with  the  City  of  the  hills  even  worse  than  it 
was  with  a  city  of  the  plain, — that  the  host  wound 
round  it,  that  sounding  brass  brayed  forth  and  eager 
voices  shouted,  and  that,  mined  by  traitorous  occupants, 
wall  and  tower  fell  flat  as  those  of  Jericho,  and  fell 
never  to  rise  again  ! 

Such,  it  would  seem,  is  the  allegory  of  our  own 
times — such  no  overdrawn  picture  of  the  exact  atti- 
tude in  which  true  believers  now  appear  to  stand.  We 
are  called  upon  by  specious  w^ords  to  give  up  every 
defence  which  the  mercies  of  God  have  permitted  to  be 
reared  up  around  us  ;  and  our  reward  is  to  be  a  bond- 
age, to  which  the  bondage  of  the  worst  age  of  the 
Church  of  Rome  would  be  found  light  and  endurable. 
There  is  no  bondage  like  that  of  scepticism.  There  is 
no  intolerance  more  intolerable  than  that  of  those  who 
are  themselves  the  servants  of  a  hard  master.  It  may 
be  a  bondage  different  to  bondages  of  the  past  in  its 


432  -^i^S  1'^  FAITH.  [E68AYIX. 

mode  of  being  Lronglit  about,  but  it  is  no  less  complete 
and  coercive.  It  is  tLie  bondage  of  contempt  and  of 
scorn.  Do  we  doubt  it  ?  Are  there  not  writings  of  our 
own  times,  writings  that  claim  scholars  and  ministers  of 
the  Gospel  for  their  authors,  that  show,  only  too  j^ain- 
fully,  what  we  have  to  expect  if  we  allow  such  to 
be  leaders  of  thought  among  us,  if  wall  and  tower  are 
to  be  thrown  down  to  let  such  men  come  in  and  have 
the  rule  over  us  ?  Granted  that  there  may  be  numer- 
ous exceptions,  that  there  may  be  those  who,  even 
while  we  are  compelled  to  number  them  among  our 
secret  foes,  we  may  be  free  to  own  have  many  kindly 
and  elevated  sympathies, — granted  that  there  may  be 
silver  sounds  heard  amid  all  this  clanging  brass,  yet 
does  not  common  sense,  does  not  history  itself  tell  us, 
that  the  voices  of  this  better  part  will  be  the  first  to  be  si- 
lenced ;  that  their  kindly  idealisms  will  be  rudely  swept 
aside  to  make  room  for  varied  and  rej^ulsive  forms  of 
aggressive  materialism  ;  that  they  will  themselves  be 
the  earliest  victims  of  the  Frankenstein  their  own  hands 
have  helped  to  shape  into  existence  ?  Let  the  thought- 
ful reader  pause  only  for  a  moment  to  muse  upon  some 
of  the  present  aspects  of  modern  society  as  revealed  by, 
as  commented  on,  and  sometimes  even  as  defended  by, 
our  public  papers,  and  then  answer  to  his  own  heart 
what  he  thinks  must  be  the  issue  if  laxity  of  religious 
thought  seriously  increase  among  us.  Yice  will  borrow 
its  excuses  from  scepticism  ;  lawlessness  of  act  will  be- 
come the  natural  sequel  of  lawlessness  of  thought ;  and 
the  end  will  be,  no  noble,  colossal,  heavenward-looking, 
ideal  man,  but  a  grovelling  satyr,  the  slave  of  his  own 
appetites,  and  the  vassal  of  his  own  abominations. 

But  we  must  pass  on  to,  or  rather  return  to,  the  sub- 
ject which  lies  more  immediately  before  us.  Enough, 
l^erhaps,  has  been  said  to  show  that  there  can  be  no 
safe  compromise,  no  over-liberal  parleying  with  those 
without,  be  they  the  kindliest  or  the  most  silver- 
tongued  of  the  children  of  men.  The  believer  of  the 
present  day  must  put  himself  in  the  attitude  of  an  op- 
ponent, kind  indeed  it  may  be,  and  large  in  heart  and 


Essay  IX.]  SCEIPTUEE,  AND   ITS  INTEEPEETATION.  433 

sympathies,  ready  and  anxious  to  rescue,  prompt  to 
spare, — yet  an  opponent ;  one  who,  when  asked  to  give 
up   old   principles,  may  not,  for  the  sake  of  others, 
wholly  refuse  to  hear  the  nature  of  the  demand,  hut 
who  hears  it  with  a  full  knowledge  of  the  true  attitude 
and  posture  of  those  by  whom  it  is  urged.     We  arc 
asked  especially  to  give  up  old  principles  in  the  inter- 
pretation of  the  Word  of  God.     Some  concession,  we 
are  warned,  is  almost  imperatively  demanded.     We  ask 
w^hy.     We  bid  our  opponents  state  their  reasons  for  a 
demand  so  sweeping  and  comprehensive.     One  of  these 
reasons  we  have  heard  already,  and  we  have  already 
observed  that  it  involves  an  ambiguity.     We  are  told 
that  the  differences  respecting  the  interpretation  of 
Scripture  are  such  that  they  show  that  prejudice  rather 
than   principle   is   the   true   mainspring  of  Scriptural 
exegesis.     Pictures  are  held  up  to  us  of  the  successive 
schools  of  interpreters,  their  follies  and  their  fallacies, 
their  bondage  to  the  influences  of  the  age  in  which  they 
lived,  their  hostility  to  all  intellectual  freedom.     Be  it 
so  ;  but  is  it  proved  that  the  interpretations  which  they 
actually  advanced  are  as  varied  as  their  methods  of 
procedure  are  so  confidently  alleged  to  be  ?     Whether 
a  great  deal  too  much  has  not  been  said  even  on  this 
subject,  whether  the  diversities  or  antagonisms  of  early 
systems  of  explaining  Scripture  have  not  greatly  been 
exaggerated,  is  a  question  into  which  here  we  will  not 
enter.     Our  inquiry  is  simply,  whether  the  difl^erences 
of  interpretation  are  at  all  more  than  the  nature  and  im- 
portance of  the  subject-matter  would  lead  us  to  expect, 
and  whether  a  great  deal  that  has  been  said  about  the 
differences  of  interpretation  does  not  wholly  belong  to 
the  differences  of  the  modes  of  procedure.     It  is,  of 
course,  quite  natural  and  conceivable  that  the  spirit  of 
each  age  may  have  swayed  teacher  and  preacher  more 
to  this  method  than  to  that ;  that  passing  controversies 
may  have  left  their  traces,  and  that  declarations  which 
seemed  of  great  moment  to  one  generation  may  not 
have  been  found  equally  so  to  another.     All  this  may 
be  so,  but  with  this  we  are  now  only  partially  con- 
19 


434  ^^^S  "^^  FAITH.  [Essay  IX 

cerned.  If  we  were  endeavouring  to  form  an  estimate 
of  the  variety  of  deductions  that  have  been  made  from 
the  words  of  Scripture  in  different  ages  of  the  Church, 
or  were  discussing  the  varying  applications  that  the  same 
sentiment  has  been  found  to  bear,  much  that  has  been 
said  on  the  subject  might  pass  unchallenged.  We  should 
probably  account  for  these  varied  forms  of  application 
or  deduction  on  different  principles  to  our  opponents ; 
we  might  see,  for  instance,  in  all  this  diversity  of  appli- 
cation only  evidences  of  "  the  manifold  wisdom  of 
God,"  and  of  that  hidden  life  with  all  its  varying  apti- 
tudes to  human  needs  which  we  know  to  be  in  the 
Written  "Word.  Our  opponents,  on  the  contrary,  might 
see  in  it  only  evidences  of  the  folly,  ignorance,  preju- 
dice, or  bad  faith  of  successive  expositors ;  we  might 
differ  widely  in  our  manner  of  accounting  for  these 
different  applications  of  Scripture,  but  we  might  to  a 
great  extent  agree  as  to  their  number  and  variety. 
This,  however,  is  not  the  question  between  us.  What 
we  are  now  told  is  not  merely  that  the  applications  or 
adaptations  of  Scripture  have  been  very  varied,  but 
that  the  difference  of  actual  meaning  assigned  to  the 
words  of  Scripture  by  expositors  of  different  ages  is  so 
suspiciously  excessive,  that  the  duty  of  purging  our 
minds  from  past  prejudices  is  imperative,  and  that 
Scripture,  must  henceforth  be  explained  on  sounder 
principles.  The  one  true  meaning  must  be  discovered 
and  adopted,  the  many  disregarded  or  rejected.  The 
first  question  between  us,  then,  is  a  question  of  amount 
and  of  degree.  Our  opponents  assert  that  Scripture 
has  had  so  many  meanings,  often  too  so  hostile  and 
suicidal,  tliat  it  presents  one  meaning  to  the'  French- 
man, another  to  the  German,  and  another  to  the  Eng- 
lishman. We  are  asked  if  this  is  not  in  itself  an  utter 
absurdity,  and  if  it  is  not  time  to  enter  upon  some  more 
reasonable  course.  That  assumed  reasonable  course  is 
sketched  out ;  canons  of  interpretation  are  laid  down  ; 
appeals  are  not  wanting  to  current  prejudices  ;  disin- 
clination or  inaptitude  for  that  wrestling  with  the  Word 
of  God  wliich  marked  earlier  and  better  ages  of  the 


Essay  IX.J  SCKIPTUKE,  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATION.  435 

Cliiircli  is  dealt  gently  with ;  disregard  of  tlic  great 
exegctical  writings  of  the  past  is  not  only  exensed  hut 
commended ;  we  are  advised  wholly  to  trust  to  our- 
selves, and  are  cheered  hy  the  assurance  that  "  if  we 
w^ill  only  confine  ourselves  to  the  i:)lain  meaning  of 
words  and  the  study  of  their  context,"  we  may  bene- 
iicially  dis2:)ense  with  all  the  expository  labours  of  the 
past  or  of  the  2:)resent.  Such  is  the  modern  mode  of 
dealing  with  one  of  the  most  momentous  subjects  of 
our  own  times,  and  with  which  personal  holiness  and 
man's  salvation  are  more  intimately  connected  than  with 
any  other  that  can  be  specified.  Is  it  unfair  to  charac- 
terize the  whole  as  nothing  more  than  positive  asser- 
tions, resting  on  ambiguities  of  language,  or  on  the 
assumed  identity  of  things  logically  different,  and  sup- 
ported by  covert  appeals  to  the  idleness,  vanity,  and 
self-sufiiciency  of  the  day  ? 

3.  We  revert,  however,  to  the  preliminary  question 
before  us.  Are  the  differences  of  meaning  that  have 
been  assigned  to  Scripture  such  in  amount  as  they  are 
said  to  be,  and  such  as  to  demand  the  rehabilitation  of 
Scriptural  interpretation  which  is  now  proposed  ?  Arc 
they  such  that,  as  it  has  been  asserted.  Scripture  bears 
an  utterly  different  meaning  to  men  of  different  ages 
and  nations?  Assuredly  not.  Xo  statement  seems 
more  completely  at  variance  with  our  general  Christian 
consciousness ;  no  assertion  can  more  readily  be  dis- 
proved when  we  come  to  details.  These,  however,  can 
never  be  made  palatable  to  the  general  reader,  nor  are 
they  commonly  convincing,  unless  carried  out  much 
further  than  would  be  possible  in  an  Essay  of  this  na- 
ture. To  prove  clearly  and  distinctly  that  there  is  not 
this  great  amount  of  discordance  in  the  interpretations 
of  Scri])ture,  it  would  be  necessary  to  compare,  and  that 
not  in  a  few  selected  cases,  but  in  a  portion  of  Scripture 
of  some  length,  the  results  arrived  at  by  commentators 
of  difterent  ages  and  countries.  Less  than  this  would 
fail  to  convince ;  for  in  the  case  of  a  few  prerogative 
instances,  which  would  be  all  we  should  have  space  for, 
the  feeling  is  ever  apt  to  arise  that  lists  equally  telling 


436  ^^^^  "^^  FAITH.  [Essay  IX. 

and  convincing  could  be  made  out  on  tlie  other  side. 
We  have,  therefore,  as  it  would  seem,  little  left  us  than 
to  meet  assertion  by  counter-assertion,  and  leave  each 
reader  to  ascertain  for  himself  on  which  side  the  truth 
lies, — whether  the  differences  in  the  interpretations  of 
Scripture  (except  in  a  comparatively  few  cases)  have 
been  thus  excessive,  or  whether  there  has  not  been  a 
very  considerable  amount  of  accordance  in  general 
matters,  and  variations  only  in  details.  Those  who  are 
acquainted  with  the  subject,  and  have  had  experience 
in  referring  to  expository  treatises  belonging  to  different 
ages  and  countries,  will  have  no  difficulty  in  pronounc- 
ing which  is  the  true  state  of  the  case,  and  whether 
assei:tion  or  counter-assertion  is  to  be  deemed  most 
worthy  of  credit.  As,  however,  the  general  reader  is 
not  always  likely  to  have  it  in  his  power  to  decide  be- 
tween the  two  statements,  and  as  the  mere  denial  of  the 
major  in  an  opponent's  syllogism  is  never  satisfactory 
without  some  reasons  being  assigned,  we  will  mention 
one  or  two  general  considerations  which,  though  not 
amounting  to  a  positive  proof  that  Scripture  has  not 
been  interpreted  as  diversely  as  has  been  asserted,  may 
yet  render  it  probable  that  such  is  the  case,  and  supply 
some  grounds  for  the  counter-assertion  above  alluded  to. 
In' the  first  place,  we  may  perhaps  with  justice  ap- 
peal to  the  Ancient  Versions,  especially  when  combined 
with  some  of  the  best  Modern  Versions,  as  tending  to 
show  that  the  amount  of  variety  in  interpretation  is  not 
so  great  as  has  been  imagined.  Let  us  take,  for  exam- 
ple, seven  of  the  best  Ancient  Versions  of  the  New 
Testament — the  Syriac  (Peshito),  the  Old  Latin  (as  far 
as  it  has  been  ascertained),  the  Vulgate,  the  Gothic,  the 
Coptic,  the  Ethiopic  (Pell  Piatt's),  and  the  Armenian, 
and  with  them  let  us  associate  the  Authorized  English 
Version  and  Luther's  German  Version,  and  then  pro- 
ceed to  inquire  what  general  opinion  a  comparison  of 
the  characteristics  of  these  Versions  leads  us  to  form  as 
to  the  question  of  a  prevailing  unanimit^}^,  or  a  prevail- 
ing discordance,  of  interpretation,  as  far  as  it  can  be 
evinced   by  a  Version.     Now,  admitting  on   the  one 


EssATlX.]  SCEIPTURE,  AND   ITS  INTEEPEETATION.  43/7 

hand  that  there  may  be  such  relations  existing  between 
some  of  these  Versions,  that  each  can  hardly  be  consid- 
ered an  independent  witness, — that  the  Yulgate,  for 
example,  is  but  an  amended  form  of  the  Old  Latin,  that 
the  Ethiopic  sometimes  seems  to  indicate  dependence 
on  the  Syriac,  that  the  Armenian  was  retouched  at  a 
late  period,  and  possibly  that  the  Yulgate  w^as  in  the 
hands  of  the  reviser, — admitting  all  this,  and  making 
also  a  deduction  for  the  influence  of  the  Yulgate,  and, 
perhaps,  to  some  small  extent,  of  the  Syriac  over  the 
two  Modern  Versions,  we  may  still  most  justly  point  to 
these  nine  Versions,  of  ages  and  countries  so  different 
and  distant,  as  evincing  an  unanimity  in  their  render- 
ings, not  only  of  general  but  even  of  disputed  passages, 
tar  beyond  what  could  have  been  expected  a  priori^  or 
can  in  any  way  be  accounted  for  by  the  admissions  we 
have  already  made.  If  it  be  said  this  must  necessarily 
be  the  case  in  Versions  which  are  all  strictly  literal  in 
their  character,  these  two  remarks  may  be  made  by 
way  of  rejoinder :  first,  that  the  very  fact  that  nine 
Versions  of  difierent  ages  and  countries  should  agree  in 
this  important  feature,  that  not  one  of  them  should  in 
any  respect  be  paraphrastic,*  and  that  some,  as  for  in- 
stance the  Old  Latin,  should  almost  be  barbarous  in 
their  exactness,  does  seem  to  show  that  not  only  in  lat^r 
ages,  but  even  in  the  earliest,  the  very  letter  of  Scrip- 
ture was  regarded  as  of  the  utmost  importance,  and 
treated  with  the  most  scrupulous  accuracy.  Where 
Versions  were  so  punctilious,  it  does  not  seem  natural 
to  expect  that  interpretation  W' ould  have  been  very  wild 
or  varied,  except  when  it  w^as  allowed  to  degenerate 
into  applications,  or  busied  itself  with  minutiffi  and  de- 
tails. Secondl}^,  it  may  be  added,  that  even  the  most 
literal  Versions  involve  interpretation  in  the  fullest 
sense  of  the  word,  especially  in  the  opinions  they  neces- 
sarily express  on  the  connexion  of  clauses,  and  in  the 
renderings  of  words  of  disputed  meaning.      A  good 

*  It  may  be  noticed  that  we  have  ppccificd  the  Ethiopic  Version  as  that 
edited  by  Mr.  l^ell  Piatt.  The  Ethiopic  found  in  Walton^  '  PolyKlott'  often 
degenerates  into  a  paraphrase,  especially  in  diliicult  passages.  The  Pcshito 
is  sometimes  idiomatically  free,  but  never  paraphrastic. 


438  ^I^S  TO  FAITn.  [Essay  IX. 

translation  is  often  the  very  best  of  commentaries,  and 
it  was  a  full  appreciation  of  this  fact  that  led  a  ven- 
erated scholar  and  divine,  when  asked  wliat  he  judged 
to  be  the  l)est  commentary  on  the  Xew  Testament,  to 
name  the  Vulgate.  The  general  unanimity  of  the  early 
as  well  as  later  Versions  is  thus  a  testimony,  at  any 
rate,  of  some  little  weight,  in  favour  of  the  belief  that 
the  amount  and  degree  of  difierences  of  interpretation 
in  earlier,  when  compared  with  later  ages,  have  been 
much  overstated. 

Still  it  may  be  urged,  that  whatever  may  be  the 
case  w^itli  Versions,  it  is  perfectly  certain  that,  in  the 
results  at  which  commentators  of  difierent  ages  have 
arrived,  there  is  a  vast  amount  not  only  of  variety  but 
of  antagonism.  In  reference  to  a  certain  number  of 
difficult  passages  this  may  be  true ;  if,  however,  this  be 
intended  as  a  general  statement  referring  to  Scrij^tural 
interpretation  at  large,  it  must  be  regarded  as  open  to 
considerable  doubt.  Let  us  endeavour  to  show  this  in 
the  following  way.  It  is  said  that  there  is  an  increas- 
ing agreement  between  recent  German  expositors,  and 
it  is  also  implied  that  the  results  at  which  they  have 
arrived  are  far  more  consonant  with  truth  than  any  that 
have  preceded.  Of  these  expositors,  De  Wette  and 
Meyer  are  often  mentioned  with  respect  by  modern 
writers.  Let  us  agree  to  take  them  as  two  fair  repre- 
sentatives of  the  exegesis  of  our  own  times.  Let  us 
now  go  to  a  remote  past,  and  choose  two  names  to  com- 
pare with  them  as  representatives  of  the  interpretation 
of  a  former  day.  Let  us  take  for  example  Chrysostom 
and  Theodoret.  They  belonged  to  an  age  sufficiently 
distant;  they  shared  in  its  feelings  and  sympathies; 
they  took  part  in  its  controversies.  They  were  not 
specially  in  advance  of  their  own  times.  One  of  them 
had,  what  many  will  judge  to  be  not  always  compatible 
with  calmness  of  interpretation,  a  strongly  rhetorical 
bias  ;  the  other  dfd  not  escape  some  suspicion  of  heresy. 
Such  as  they  were,  or  have  been  judged  to  be,  let  us 
compare  them,  in  some  portion  of  Scripture  (St.  Paul's 
Epistles  for  example),  on  which  all  have  written,  with 


Essay  IX.]  SCFJPTUEE,  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATION.  ^gn 

the  two  piodern  commentators  above  specified,  and 
state  what  seem  to  be  the  general  results  of  the  com- 
parison. We  naturally  set  out  with  the  expectation  of 
linding  very  great  diversity.  If  all  that  has  been  said 
on  this  subject  be  true;  if  the  fourteen  centuries  which 
lie  between  the  two  pairs  of  men  be  as  plentifully 
diversified  as  they  are  said  to  have  been  by  changes  in 
methods  of  interpretation, — changes,  too,  asserted  to 
have  been  gradually  leading  us  up  to  more  perfect 
principles  of  interpretation, — we  must  expect  to  find  a 
very  great  amount  of  discordance  between  them.  Yet 
what  do  we  discover  when  we  actually  institute  the 
comparison  ?  To  speak  very  generally,  it  would  seem 
to  be  as  follows.  There  will  be  found  in  the  first  place 
a  considerable  amount  of  variety  in  matters  of  detail, 
the  older  interpreters  more  commonly  giving  what  may 
be  termed  an  objective  reference  to  w^ords  and  expres- 
sions, where  the  two  modern  writers  will  be  found 
agreeing  to  adopt  a  more  subjective  view.  In  the  sec- 
ond place,  dififerences  will  be  observed  in  the  treatment 
of  doctrinal  passages;  the  older  interpreters  usually 
expounding  them  w^itli  reference  to  the  great  contro- 
versies of  their  own  times,  and  to  points  of  polemical 
detail ;  the  modern  interpreters  usually  trying  to  gen- 
eralize, and  not  unfrequently  to  dilute  and  explain 
avv^ay,  whenever  doctrinal  statements  appear  to  assume 
a  very  distinctive .  or  definite  aspect.  In  a  word,  the 
tendency  of  the  two  earlier  writers  is  to  what  is  objec- 
tive and  special ;  of  the  two  later  to  what  is  subjective 
and  general.  These  distinctions  will  certainly  be  ob- 
served, especially  in  the  two  departments  above  alluded 
to — matters  of  detail  and  matters  of  doctrine,  and  may 
perhaps  be  deemed  sufiicient  to  justify  the  recognition 
of  some  clear  lines  of  demarcation  between  earlier  and 
more  modern  interpretation.  AVhen,  however,  these 
points  of  difiference  arc  set  aside,  there  will  be  found 
remaining  in  the  great  bulk  of  Scripture,  and  in  all 
general  passages,  an  amount  of  accordance  so  striking 
and  60  persistent,  that  it  can  only  be  accounted  for  by 
the  assumption  that  these  four  able  expositors  all  in- 


44Q  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  IX. 

stinctively  recognized  one  common  and  sound  principle 
of  Scriptural  interpretation.  The  precise  nature  of  that 
principle  will  become  aj^parent  as  we  advance  further 
in  our  investigations. 

4.  Believing  that  these  remarks  are  just,  and  capa- 
ble of  being  fully  substantiated,  we  may  claim  to  have 
at  least  made  it  probable,  that  the  extent  of  the  alleged 
differences  in  the  interpretation  of  Scripture  between 
our  own  times  and  the  past  has  been  unduly  exagger- 
ated.    Here  we  might  pause  as  far  as  the  present  por- 
tion of  our  subject  is  concerned.     It  may  be  well,  how- 
ever, to  take  one  step  farther,  and  show,  what  fairly 
can  be  shown,  that  from  the  very  earliest  times,  the 
literal  and  historical  method  of  interpreting  Scripture, 
now  so  often  claimed  as  the  distinguishing  character- 
istic of  our  own  times,  has  ever  been  recognized  in  the 
Church  as  the  true  method  on  man's  side  of  interpret- 
ing the  Oracles  of  God.     On  this  subject,  owing  to  the 
small  amount  of  exact  knowledge,  even  among  more 
professed  students,  and  to  the  currency  which  a  few 
popular  comments  readily  obtain  among  those  whose 
acquaintance  with  these  ancient  writers  must  ever  be 
second-hand,  many  questionable  statements  are  allowed 
to  pass  unchallenged.     It  would,  perhaps,  seem  hope- 
less to  attempt  to  say  one  word  in  favour  of  the  method 
of  interpretation  adopted  by  Origen.     Every  writer  of 
the  day  uses  that  great  name  to  illustrate  what  is  to  be 
regarded  as  w^ild  and  fanciful.     And  yet,  what  is  the 
opinion  which  any  real  student  of  Origen's  exegetical 
works  would  certainly  give  us  ?     What,  for  instance, 
w^ould  be  the  statement  of  an  unbiassed  scholar  who 
had  thoughtfully  read  what  remain  to  us  of  his  com- 
mentaries on  St.  Matthew  and  St.  John  ?     Would  he 
not  tell  us  that  in  these  portions  of  his  works,  whatever 
may  have  been  his  theories  elsewhere,  Origen  rarely 
iailed  to  give  the  first  place  to  the  simple  and  literal 
interpretation,  and  that  his  divergencies  into  allegory 
far  more  often  deserve  the  name  of  applications  than 
of  actual  expositions  ?     Allegory  seems  really  and  pri- 
marily to  have  commended  itself  to   Origen  as  the 


Essay  IX.]  SCEIPTUEE,  AND  ITS  INTEErEETATION.  44^! 

readiest  method  of  dealing  with  those  difficulties  which 
his  acute  miiid  almost  too  quickly  recognized  as  tran- 
scending human  reason  and  explanation.  The  remark 
of  one  who  has  carefully  read  and  well  used  one  por- 
tion of  his  works — the  expositor  Liicke — is  probably 
not  wholly  unjust,  that  a  tendency  to  rationalize,  of 
which  Origen  himself  was  unconscious,  may  to  a  great 
degree  account  for  his  bias  to  allegory  and  mystical 
modes  of  interpretation,  whenever  the  difficulties  of  the 
passage  seemed  to  rise  above  the  usual  level.  Where 
there  was  no  necessity  for  this,  where  there  were  no 
historical  details  which  seemed  at  issue  with  human 
reason,  or  with  received  views  of  morality  and  justice, 
Origen  shows  plainly  enough  what  method  of  inter- 
preting the  AYord  of  God  he  deemed  to  be  the  true  and 
correct  one.  We  may  abundantly  verify  this  from  his 
extant  writings.  We  may  also  further  judge  from  frag- 
ments preserved  in  Catenae  (his  scattered  comments, 
for  example,  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians)  what 
were  really  his  leading  principles  ;  and  we  may  fairly 
ask  if  they  were  so  very  different  from  the  principles 
of  interpreting  Scripture  which  all  parties,  friends  and 
foes,  seem  now  in  the  main  agreed  in  regarding  as 
reasonable  and  correct. 

We  might  extend  these  remarks  almost  indefinitely 
by  discussing  the  true  nature  of  the  leading  methods 
of  interpreting  Scripture — these  methods  which  we  are 
told  are  so  strangely  discordant — in  the  case  of  each 
one  of  the  more  distinguished  expositors  of  different 
ages  of  the  Church.  We  might  show,  for  instance, 
that  no  amount  of  strong  polemical  bias  prevented 
Cyril  of  Alexandria  from  expounding  portions  of  Scrip- 
ture (the  Gospel  of  St.  John  for  example)  with  what, 
even  in  our  own  critical  days,  must  be  called  felicity 
and  success.  We  might  make  it  clear  that  the  rhetor- 
ical turn  of  Chrysostoin's  mind  never  prevented  him 
from  fully  discussing  verbal  distinctions,  analysing  the 
meanings  of  prepositions,  estimating  the  force  of  com- 
pound forms,  and  so  placing  before  his  reader  as  calm, 
clear,  and  persuasive  a  view  of  the  passage  under  con- 
19* 


442  -^1^^  ^^  i'AlTlI.  [EssATlX. 

sideration  as  we  may  find  in  the  best  specimens  of 
modern  interpretation.  We  might  turn  to  the  West, 
and  in  spite  of  some  growing  disposition  to  admit 
more  generally  those  studied  distinctions  in  reference 
to  threefold  or  fourfold  senses  of  Scripture  which  Ori- 
gen  bequeathed  to  his  successors,  we  might  still  appeal 
to  Augustine  as  a  writer,  whose  special  interpretations 
can  never  be  spoken  of  wdthout  respect,  and  whose 
perceptions  of  the  inner  mind  of  Scripture,  and  of  the 
true  bearing  of  its  deeper  declarations,  remain  to  this 
very  hour  unequalled  for  their  perspicuity  and  truth. 
IS'ay,  we  might  even  shoAV  that  the  studied  recognition 
of  several  senses  in  Scripture  was  rather  a  form  of  cqy- 
plication  than  of  definite  and  genuine  interpretation. 
We  might  even  go  onward,  and  pass  into  those  ages 
which  have  become  very  bywords  for  perverted  inter- 
pretation of  Scripture — the  ages  of  the  earlier  and  later 
schoolmen — and  even  in  them,  amid  subtile  and  narrow 
logic  on  this  side,  and  a  wild  and  speculative  idealism 
on  that,  we  should  have  no  difiiculty  in  showing  that 
there  was  a  via  media  of  sound  principles  of  interpreta- 
tion which  was  both  recognized  and  proceeded  on.  It 
is  perfectly  true  that  at  this  period  not  only  the  earlier 
threefold  and  fourfold  senses  of  Scripture  were  re-as- 
serted and  re-applied,  but  that  even  sevenfold,  eight- 
fold,* and,  if  we  choose  to  press  the  words  of  Erigena, 
infinite  senses  of  Scripture  were  admitted  by  mediaeval 
interpreters  ;  but  it  is  also  perfectly  true  and  demon- 
strable, from  passing  comments  and  cautions,  that  the 
simple,  plain,  and  literal  sense  was  always  admitted  to 
be  the  basis,  and  that  other  forms  of  interpretation 
were  commonly  regarded  more  in  the  light  of  deduc- 
tions and  applications.  The  rule  laid  down  by  Aqui- 
nas was  clear  enough,  and  expresses  fairly  the  general 
feeling  of  the  interpreters  of  his  own  time, — "  In  omni- 

*  The  enumeration  may  nmnse  tlie  reader:  (1)  Scnsus  litcralis  vcl  his- 
toricus;  (2)  allegoricus  vol  parabolicus;  (3)  tropoloiriciis  vol  etymologicus; 
(4)  anagogicus  vel  analogicus ;  (">)  tyincus  vcl  exemplaris ;  (G)  anaphoricus 
vcl  proportionalis  ;  (7)  boarcadcniicus  vcl  primordialis  {i.e.  quo  ipsa  principia 
rerum  comparantur  cum  bcatitudinc  a^tcrna  ct  tota  dispeusatioue  salutis) ; 
see  Bibl.  Max.  Fair.  torn.  xvii.  p.  315  seq.    (Lugd  1677). 


EssatIX.]  SCKIPTUEE,  AND  ITS  INTEEPRETATION.  443 

bus  qu93  Scriptura  tradit,  pro  fundamento  est  tenenda 
Veritas  historica,  et  desuper  spirituales  expositioiies 
fabricandai "  {Siwima  Theol.  Pars.  1,  Qu.  102,  Art.  1) : 
tlie  literal  and  historical  came  Urst,  the  rest  were  forms 
of  application.  It  is  not,  however,  merely  from  pass- 
ing comments,  or  from  asserted,  but  really  neglected 
principles,  but  from  the  general  tenor  of  the  better  ex- 
positions of  the  time  that  the  full  force  of  the  above 
remarks  will  best  be  felt.  Let  a  fair  and  intelligent 
reader  consent  to  give  a  little  time  to  some  of  the  in- 
terpretations of  dithcult  passages  in  St.  Paul's  Epistles 
as  put  forward  by  Lombard  or  Aquinas,  and  then  tell 
us  his  impressions.  AVe  will  venture  to  state  what  his 
report  would  be, — that  it  w^as  a  matter  of  surprise  to 
him,  in  an  age  which  has  ever  been  a  very  byword  for 
subtilties  and  pedantry,  to  find  such  a  large  amount  of 
reasonable  and  intelligent  interpretation  of  the  Word 
of  God. 

5.  To  gather  up,  then,  our  preceding  comments, 
may  we  not  fairly  saj^—Jlrst,  that  much  that  has  been 
said  about  the  extent  and  variety  of  interpretations  of 
Scripture  is  exaggerated ;  secondly^  that  even  the  va- 
rious methods  of  interpretation — which,  when  it  serves 
a  purpose,  our  opponents  regard  as  meaning  the  same 
as  the  results  arrived  at — may  in  many,  perhaps  most, 
cases  be  regarded  as  modes  of  applying  or  expanding 
the  primary  sense,  rather  than  of  eliciting  substantive 
and  independent  meanings  ;  thirdly^  not  only  that  God 
has  never  left  Himself  without  a  witness,  and  that  in 
every  age  there  have  been  a  few  faithful  representa- 
tives of  fixithful  p)rinciples  of  interpretation,  but  fur- 
ther, that  there  has  been  from  the  very  earliest  times, 
not  only  in  theory  but  in  practice,  a  plain,  literal,  and 
historical  mode  of  interpreting  Scripture  ;  and  finally^ 
that  there  may  be  traced  so  great  an  identity  in  the  re- 
sults arrived  at  by  successive  interpreters,  that  we  have 
full  warrant  for  using  the  term  Catholic  in  reference  to 
a  far  larger  portion  of  what  may  be  considered  current 
orthodox  inter])retations  than  the  mere  popular  dis- 
putant is  at  all  aware  of?     Let  the  inquiry  be  put 


444  -^^^9  TO  FAITH.  [EssATlX 

with  all  simplicity  to  those,  whether  in  this  country  or 
abroad,  wlio  have  made  Ancient  Versions  and  exposi- 
tors their  study,  and,  liowever  different  their  opinions 
may  be  on  other  points,  on  this  they  will  be  agreed, — 
that  there  is  such  a  concordia  discors  in  the  results  ob- 
tained, that  in  very  many  passages  we  can  produce  in- 
terpretations which  may  stand  even  the  test  of  Yincent 
of  Lerins,  and  may  justly  be  termed  the  traditional  in- 
terpretations of  the  Church  of  Christ. 

TVe  know,  of  course,  how  these  statements  botli 
have  been  and  will  be  disposed  of  by  the  impatient  and 
the  confident.  It  will  be  said,  probably,  that  granting 
merely  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  there  is  that 
species  of  concord  of  interpretation  in  many  important 
passages,  it  has  been  only  the  result  of  traditional  prej- 
udices from  which  it  is  now  our  duty  to  make  our- 
selves free.  It  will  be  added  that  any  form  of  such 
consent  is  in  itself  suspicious,  and  that  if  our  intuitions 
run  counter  to  it  we  are  at  once  tp  listen  to  the  voice 
of  reason  within  us,  and  reject  the  interpretation  of 
every  Church  and  every  age  of  the  world,  if  it  does  not 
approve  itself  to  our  own  convictions.  Brave  and 
buoyant  in  our  own  self-esteem,  we  shall  perhaps  never 
pause  to  ask  how  far  the  so-called  voice  of  reason  may 
not  be  the  voice  of  prejudice, — how  far  convictions  may 
not  be  merely  the  results  of  secret  influences  within, 
and  of  some  half-consciousness  that  what  we  reject 
bears  aspects  or  involves  conclusions  sadly  at  variance 
with  our  habits  or  our  propensions.  We  may  at  last 
perceive  that  it  is  the  Word  of  God  in  its  dreaded  func- 
tion of  searching  the  intents  of  the  heart  that  is  now 
being  brought  home  to  us,  and  in  our  very  dismay  and 
perplexity  we  may  liave  felt  forced  to  come  to  the  de- 
termination that  every  inter2:)retation,  be  it  of  Church, 
or  of  Council,  that  makes  us  thus  tremble  for  ourselves, 
both  must  be  and  shall  be  either  rejected  or  ignored. 
Thus,  perhaps,  will  all  that  has  been  urged  be  disposed 
of.  Be  it  so.  There  is  a  proud  and  confident  spirit 
abroad  ;  there  is  a  love  of  self,  self  in  its  more  purely 
intellectual  aspects,  above  measure  painful  and  revolt- 


Essay  IX.]  SCRIPTURE,  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATION.  445 

iiig ;  there  are  forms  bearing  the  names  of  moral  good- 
ness and  freedom,  and  yet  involving  the  denial  of  the 
essence  of  both,  that  bring  an  Apostle's  predictions 
sadly  and  strangely  to  our  thoughts, — and  we  feel  it 
must  be  so,  and  that  there  are  some  wliose  ears  must 
be  and  will  be  turned  away  from  tJie  truth.  Yet  there 
are  others — especially  the  young,  the  ardent,  the  inex- 
perienced— to  whom  what  has  been  thus  far  urged  may 
not  have  been  urged  in  vain.  To  them  our  arguments 
are  mainly  addressed,  to  them  we  are  speaking,  for 
them  we  are  pleading.  "Young  man,  true  in  heart 
and  earnest  in  spirit,  honest  searcher,  anxious  yet 
prayerful  inquirer,  let  not  thy  eyes  be  holden  by  proud, 
unkindly  hands,  judge  for  thyself.  Believe  not  every 
one  that  tells  thee  that  the  records  of  the  Church  are 
scribbled  over  with  every  form  of  strange,  idle,  and 
conventional  interpretation  of  the  Word  of  God.  Judge 
for  thyself,  but  judge  righteous  judgment.  If  there  be 
fuller  concords  in  the  voices  of  the  past  than  thou  hast 
believed,  close  not  thine  ears  to  them  because  as  yet 
they  sound  not  fully  harmonious  to  thee.  Wait,  ponder, 
pray:  ere  long,  perchance  thine  own  voice  wdll  spon- 
taneously blend  with  what  thou  hearest ;  thou  thyself, 
by  the  grace  of  God,  may  at  length  hear  sounding 
round  thee,  and  by  thine  own  experience  make  others 
hear  with  thee,  the  holy  accords  and  harmonies  of  the 
deep  things  of  the  Word  of  God." 

§2. 

6.  We  now  pass  naturally  onward  to  another  por- 
tion, or  rather  to  another,  and  that  at  first  sight  an  op- 
posed, aspect  of  our  present  subject.  Hitherto  we  have 
shown  not  only  that  the  amount  of  the  differences  of 
interpretation  has  been  clearly  over-estimated,  but  even 
that  the  true  and  honest  method  of  interpreting  the 
Word  of  God — the  literal,  historical,  and  grammatical 
— has  been  recognized  in  every  age,  and  that  the  re- 
sults are  to  be  seen  in  the  agreement  on  numberless 
passages  of  importance  that  may  be  found  in  expositors 


446  -^^^3  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  IX. 

of  all  periods ;  in  otlier  words,  that  the  illuminating 
grace  of  God  has  ever  been  with  His  Church.  This 
being  so,  it  is  but  waste  of  time  to  consider  the  cause's 
that  have  been  alleged  for  the  existence  of  the  multi- 
tude of  interpretations,  when  that  multitude  has  been 
proved  to  a  great  extent  to  be  imaginaiy.  We  will  not, 
then,  pause  to  discuss  the  amount  of  varying  interpreta- 
tions that  have  been  ascribed,  w^hether,  on  the  one 
hand,  to  rhetoric  and  desires  to  edify,  or,  on  the  other, 
to  party  feeling  and  efforts  to  wrest  the  meanings  of 
Scri]3ture  to  different  sides.  We  deny  not  that  both 
have  produced  some  effect  on  the  interpretation  of 
Scripture.  We  do  not  deny  that  the  Christian  preacher 
may  have  often  urged  meanings  that  do  not  lie  in  the 
w^ords,  and  that  these  may  have  been  adopted  by  con- 
temporaries and  echoed  and  reproduced  by  those  that 
have  followed.  We  deny  not,  again,  that  the  natural 
meaning  of  many  texts  may  have  been  perverted  by 
prejudice  on  one  side  or  other,  and  that  traces  of  this 
may  still  remain  in  some  of  the  current  interpretations 
of  our  own  times.  All  this  we  deny  not,  but,  on  the 
other  hand,  w^e  confidently  assert  that  the  effects  have 
been  limited,  and  that  all  the  assumptions  that  the 
contrary  has  been  the  case  fall  with  the  fallen  assump- 
tion, viz.,  that  the  discordance  of  Scripture  interpreta- 
tions is  excessive,  and  that  all  methods  hitherto  adopted 
have  been  uncertain  or  untrustworthy. 

But  we  now  come  to  what  at  first  sight  may  appear 
a  reversed  aspect  of  our  subject.  While,  on  the  one 
hand,  we  consider  it  proved  that  there  has  been  from 
the  first  a  substantial  agreement,  not  only  in  the  mode 
of  interpreting  Scripture,  but  in  many  of  its  most  im- 
portant details,  we  are  equally  prepared,  on  the  other 
hand,  to  recognize  the  existence  of  great  differences  of 
opinion  about  the  meanings  of  individual  passages,  and 
even  in  reference  to  the  methods  by  which  these  mean- 
ings may  be  best  obtained.  No  one  who  has  had  any 
experience  in  the  interpretation  of  Scripture  can  with 
honesty  assert  the  contrary.  It  may  be  true  that  in  the 
great  majority  of  all  the  more  important  passages  care- 


Essay  IX.]  SCEirTURE,  AND  ITS  INTEEPEETATION.  447 

ful  consideration  will  show  that  what  logic,  grammar, 
and  a  proper  valuation  of  the  significance  of  w^ords, 
seem  to  indicate  as  the  principal  and  primary  meaning 
of  the  passage,  will  be  found  to  have  been  recognized 
as  such  ages  before,  and  has  substantially  held  its 
ground  to  our  own  times, — still  experience  teaches  us 
that  there  is  a  very  large  residuum  of  less  important 
passages  in  which  interpreters  break  up  into  groups, 
and  in  which  the  expositor  of  the  nineteenth  century 
has  to  yield  to  the  guidance  of  principles  perhaps  but 
recently  recognized,  yet,  from  their  justice  and  truth, 
of  an  influence  and  authority  that  cannot  be  gainsaid. 
There  are,  indeed,  even  a  few  cases,  but  confessedly 
nnimportant,  where  the  modern  interpreter  has  to  op- 
pose himself" to  every  early  Yersion  and  every  patristic 
commentator,  and  where  it  is  almost  certain  he  is  right 
in  so  doing.  Let  the  connexion  of  the  concluding  por- 
tion of  Gal.  iv.  12  be  cited  as  an  example.  Such  in- 
stances are,  however,  very  rare,  and  need  hardly  be 
mentioned,  save  to  show  that  principles  can  never  be 
dispensed  with,  and  that,  though  we  yield  all  becoming 
deference  to  interpretations  in  which  antiquity  is  mainly 
agreed,  we  yet  by  no  means  pledge  ourselves  unreserv- 
edly to  accept  them.  All  these  differences,  then,  in 
the  interpretations  of  individual  passages,  we  frankly 
recognize;  nay  more,  we  may  in  many  cases  admit 
that  there  are  clearly  defined  differences  in  the  method 
of  interpreting — perhaps  an  extended  context.  Last 
of  all,  it  is  not  to  be  suppressed  that  there  is  a  some- 
what large  class  of  passages  so  far-reaching,  so  inclu- 
sive, and  so  profound,  that  not  only  are  all  the  better 
interpretations  remarkable  for  their  varied  character, 
but  for  their  appearing,  perhaps  each  one,  to  represent 
a  portion  of  the  true  meaning,  but  scarcely,  all  of  them 
together,  what  our  inner  soul  seems  to  tell  us  is  tlie 
complete  and  nltimate  meaning  of  the  words  that  meet 
the  outward  eye. 

Y.  We  are  thus  admitting  the  existence  of  diversity 
of  interpretation,  especially  in  individual  i^assages  and 
details,  as  readily  and  as  frankly  as  we  have  argued  for 


448  -^II^S  TO  FAITH.  [EssAT  IX. 

the  existence  of  a  far  greater  prevailing  unity  both  in 
the  meanings  themselves,  and  the  methods  of  arriving 
at  them  in  all  more  important  passages,  than  is  willingly 
recognized  by  popular  writers.  The  questioii  then  na- 
turally arises,  how  do  we  account  for  these  apparently 
reversed  aspects?  How  can  we  in  the  same  breath 
assert  prevailing  unity,  and  yet  admit  diversity  ?  How 
do  we  account  for  a  state  of  things  which  in  Sophocles 
or  Plato  would  be  pronounced  incredible  or  absurd? 
Our  answer  is  of  a  threefold  nature.  We  account  for 
this  by  observing.  Firsts  that  the  Bible  is  diflerent  to 
every  other  book  in  the  world,  and  that  its  interpreta- 
tion may  well  be  supposed  to  involve  many  difficulties 
and  diversities.  Secondly ^  that  the  words  of  Scripture 
in  many  parts  have  more  than  one  meaning  and  appli- 
cation. Thirdly^  that  Scripture  is  inspired,  and  that 
though  written  by  man,  it  is  a  revelation  from  God, 
and  adumbrates  His  eternal  plenitudes  and  perfections. 

On  each  one  of  these  forms  of  the  answer  w^e  will 
make  a  few  observations. 

I.  On  the  first,  perhaps,  little  more  need  be  said 
than  has  been  incidentally  brought  forward  in  earlier 
parts  of  this  Essay.  It  is,  indeed,  most  unreasonable 
to  compare,  even  in  externals,  the  Bible  with  any  other 
book  in  the  world.  A  collection  of  many  treatises, 
written  in  many  different  styles,  and  at  many  different 
ages,  can  never  be  put  side  by  side  with  the  works  of 
a^single  author,  nor  will  any  canons  of  interpretation 
which  may  be  just  and  reasonable  in  the  latter  case,  be 
necessarily  applicable  to  the  former.  What,  for  in- 
stance, can  really  be  more  strange  than  to  lay  down 
the  rule  that  we  are  to  interpret  the  Scripture  like  any 
other  book,  when,  in  the  merest  rough  and  outside 
view,  the  Scripture  presents  such  striking  differences 
from  any  book  that  the  world  has  ever  seen?  The 
strangeness  becomes  greater  when  we  look  inward,  and 
observe  the  varied  nature  of  the  contents, — prose  and 
poetry,  history  and  prophecy,  teachings  of  an  incarnate 
God,  and  exhortations  and  messages  of  men  to  men. 
How  very  unreasonable  to  insist  on  similar  modes  of 


Essay  IX.]  SCRIPTUKE,   AND   ITS   INTEEniETATION.  449 

interpreting  what  our  very  opponents  rightly  term  "  a 
world  by  itself" — a  world  from  which  foreign  influences 
are  to  be  excluded — and  any  other  documents  or  rec- 
ords that  have  come  from  the  hand  of  man  !  IIow 
can  we  with  justice  require  that  amount  of  exegetical 
agreemeut  in  the  former  case  that  might  naturally  be 
looked  for  and  demanded  in  the  latter?  How  very 
reasonable,  on  the  other  hand,  is  the  supposition  that 
in  the  interpretation  of  a  collection  of  treatises  of  such 
varied  and  momentous  import  we  may  have  to  recog- 
nize both  unities  and  diversities, — unities  as  due  to  the 
illuminating  grace  of  the  one  and  self-same  Spirit 
similarly  vouchsafed  to  all  meek  and  holy  readers  of 
Scripture  in  every  age  of  the  Church, — diversities  as 
due  to  the  profundity  and  variety  that  must  ever  mark 
the  outpourings  of  the  manifold  wisdom  of  God !  It 
seems,  indeed,  idle  to  dwell  upon  what  is  thus  obvious 
and  self-evident ;  but  it  has  been  rendered  necessary 
by  what  we  are  obliged  to  term  the  unfairness  of  our 
opponents.  At  one  time,  when  the  argument  seems  to 
require  it,  the  Scripture  is  considered  as  a  single  book, 
to  be  dealt  with  like  other  books,  subject  to  the  same 
critical  canons,  amenable  to  the  same  laws  of  interpre- 
tation :  at  another  time  it  emerges  to  view  as  a  collec- 
tion of  records,  unconnected  and  discordant,  wdiich  it 
is  desirable  to  keep  thus  divided,  that  they  may  be  the 
more  readily  disposed  of ;  and,  wdienever  it  may  seem 
necessary,  the  more  successfully  pitted  against  one  an- 
other in  contradictions  and  antagonisms. 

II.  We  pass  onward  to  our  second  form  of  answer. 
Here  we  find  ourselves,  as  might  have  been  foreseen, 
in  undisguised  conflict  with  the  sceptical  writers  of 
our  own  time.  That  Scrij)ture  has  one  meaning,  and 
one  meaning  only,  is  their  fundamental  axiom  :  it  is 
seen  to  be,  and  felt  to  be,  one  of  the  keys  of  their  posi- 
tion. AVhen,  however,  we  pause  to  ask  how  that  one 
meaning  is  to  be  defined,  we  receive  answers  that  are 
neither  very  intelligible  nor  consistent.  If  we  are  told 
that  it  is  "  that  meaning  which  it  had  to  the  mind  of 
the  Prophet  or  Evangelist  who  first  uttered  or  wrote, 


450  A^^^  T^  FAITH.  [Essay  IX. 

to  the  licarcrs  or  readers  who  first  received  the  mes- 
Bage,"  we  may  jnstly  protest  against  an  answer  involv- 
ing alike  such  assumptions  and  such  ambiguities.  What 
right  have  we  to  assume  that  the  speaker  knew  the  lull 
meaning  which  his  own  words  might  subsequently  be 
found  to  bear  ?  A  very  little  reflection  will  show^  the 
justice  of  this  query.  What  right,  again,  have  we  to 
assume  that  the  meaning  which  the  Prophet  or  Evan- 
gelist designed  to  convey  was  identical  with  that  which 
the  hearers  or  readers  w^ho  first  received  the  message 
conceived  to  be  conveyed  in  its  words  ?  Assuming 
even  that  it  was  so,  how  are  we  to  arrive  at  this  one 
meaning  common  to  hearer  and  speaker  ?  How  are 
we  to  recognize  it,  when  the  words  before  us  may  bear 
two  or  more  meanings,  each,  perliaps,  equally  probable 
and  supported  by  arguments  of  equal  validity  ?  It 
wull  be  said  that  this  is  precisely  the  duty  of  the  Inter- 
preter ;  that  it  is  for  him  to  disengage  himself  from  the 
trammels  of  the  present,  and  free  from  the  bondage  of 
prejudices  and  creeds  to  transport  himself  back  into  the 
l^ast,  to  mingle  in  spirit  with  those  who  first  heard  the 
words,  to  feel  as  they  felt,  to  hear  as  they  heard,  to 
recover  the  one,  the  true,  and  the  original  meaning, 
and  to  bring  it  back  to  the  hearer  or  reader  of  our  own 
times.  All  this  is  high-sounding  and  rhetorical ;  it  is 
sure  to  attract  the  young  and  the  enthusiastic,  and  by 
no  means  ill-calculated  to  excite  and  delude  the  inex- 
perienced. BiTt  it  is  rhetoric,  and  nothing  more.  No 
one  who  has  had  genuine  experience  in  the  interpreta- 
tion of  Scripture  would  hesitate  to  pronounce  such 
"  magnifyings  of  an  office  "  as  completely  delusive,  if 
even  not  deserving  the  graver  term,  mischievous. 
Delusive  they  certainly  are,  because  all  this  self-pro- 
jection into  the  past  is  in  reality,  and  ever  has  been, 
unostentatiously  practised  by  all  better  interpreters — 
by  all  who  have  souglit  with  humility  and  earnestness 
to  catch  the  spirit  and  mind  of  the  Avriter  whom  they 
are  striving  to  expound.  All  this  has  been  practised, 
almost  from  the  first.  Chrysostom  spoke  of  it,  Augus- 
tine commended  it,  and  yet  what  has  been  the  result 


Essay  IX.]  SCKIPTIT.E,  AND   ITS  IXTEPwrRETATION.  45  j 

of  experience  ?  Wliy?  ^^^^^  passage  after  passage  has 
been  found  to  be  so  pregnant  with  meaning,  so  mys- 
teriously full,  so  comprehensively  applicable,  that  the 
most  self-confident  interpreter  in  the  world  could 
scarcely  be  brought  to  declare  his  complete  conviction 
that  the  one  view  out  of  many  which  he  may  have 
adopted  Avas  certainly  the  principal  one,  much  less  that 
it  was  the  only  meaning  of  the  words  before  him. 

But  to  give  up  such  attitudes  of  delusive  self-con- 
fidence, and  to  return  to  modesty  and  reason,  we  may 
now  proceed  to  illustrate  our  first  assertion,  that  Scrip- 
ture has  frequently  more  than  one  meaning,  by  refer- 
ences to  three  particulars  in  which  this  is  very  clear- 
ly exemplified, — double  meanings,  or  applications  of 
prophecy,  types,  and  deeper  senses  of  simple  histor- 
ical statements.    A  few  remarks  shall  be  made  on  each. 

(1.)  On  the  first  so  much  has  been  said  of  late  that 
it  might  almost  seem  pure  knight-errantry  to  undertake 
the  advocacy  of  what  (we  are  told)  ought  now  to  be  re- 
garded as  a  mere  outworn  prejudice.  And  yet  what  is 
more  thoroughly  consonant  with  reason,  and,  we  might 
almost  add,  experience,  than  such  a  belief?  "VYe  say 
experience, — for  there  must  be  few  calm  observers  of 
the  course  of  events  around  them  who  can  fail  to  have 
been  struck  with  the  curious  re-appearance,  under  un- 
likely circumstances,  of  former  combinations,  and  who 
have  not  occasionally  been  almost  startled  by  the  re- 
currence of  incidents  in  relations  and  connexions  that 
could  never  have  been  reasonably  expected  again.  It 
does  not  seem  too  much  to  say  that  in  many  instances 
nations  and  individuals  alike  seem  moving  as  it  were 
in  spirals,  constantly  returning,  not  exactly  to  the  same 
point,  but  to  the  same  bearings  and  the  same  aspects, — 
not  precisely  to  a  former  past,  but  to  a  present  that 
bears  to  it  a  very  strange  and  wholly  unlooked-for 
resemblance.  If  this  be  true  in  many  things  that  fall 
under  our  own  immediate  observation  (and  very  unob- 
servant must  he  be  who  has  not  often  verified  it  for 
himself),  if  we  often  seem  to  ourselves  to  recognize  this 
principle  of  events  becoming  in  many  respects  doubles 


452  ^^^^  ^^  FAITII.  [Essay  IX. 

of  each  other,  and  that  not  only  in  minor  matters,  but 
even  in  circumstances  of  some  historical  importance, — 
if  this  be  so,  is  it  strange  that  in  the  si^iritnal  history 
of  onr  race  there  should  be  such  parallehsms  ;  that 
words  apparently  spoken  in  reference  to  a  precursory 
series  of  events  should  be  found  to  refer  with  equal 
pertinence  to  some  mysteriously  similar  combinations 
that  appeared  long  afterwards  ?  Are  we  to  think  that 
counsels  sealed  in  silence  from  eternity,  that  purposes 
of  the  ages  formed  before  the  worlds  were  made,  that 
dispensations  of  love  and  mercy  laid  out  even  before 
the  objects  for  whom  they  were  designed  had  come 
into  being,  were  not  over  and  over  again  reflected,  as 
it  were,  in  the  history  of  our  race,  and  that  the  events 
of  a  former  day  were  not  often  bound  in  mystical  like- 
nesses and  afiinities  with  the  events  of  the  future  by 
that  principle  of  redeeming  love  which  permeated  and 
pervaded  all?  Unless  we  are  prepared  plainly  to 
adopt  some  of  the  bleakest  theories  of  the  scepticism 
of  these  later  days ;  unless  we  are  determined  to  find 
civilization  and  development  and  not  God  in  history  ; 
unless  we  have  resolved  to  see  in  the  Gospel  no  fore- 
ordered  dispensation,  but  only  a  system  of  morality, 
unannounced,  unforeshadowed,  as  strange  in  its  isolated 
and  excej^tional  character  as  it  has  been  strange  in  its 
effects, — then,  and  then  only,  can  we  consistently  deny 
the  likelihood  and  probability  of  God's  purposes  to  the 
world  having  imparted  to  events  seemingly  remote  and 
unconnected,  and  to  issues  brought  about  by  varied 
and  dissimilar  circumstances,  real  and  spiritual  resem- 
blances. Then  only  can  we  justly  deny  that  the  word 
of  prophecy  might  truly,  legitimately,  and  consistently 
be  considered  to  refer  as  well  to  earlier  as  to  later 
events,  wherever  such  resemblances  could  be  reason- 
ably demonstrated  to  exist. 

To  illustrate  the  foregoing  comments  by  an  exam- 
ple, let  us  take  an  instance  which  our  opponents  are 
never  wearied  with  bringing  forward, —  our  Lord's 
prophecy  relative  to  the  fate  of  Jerusalem  and  the  end 
of  tlie  world.     Here  it  is  said  that  the  system  of  first 


Essay  IX.]  SCIilPTUIlE,  AND  ITS  INTEEPEETATION.  453 

and  secoiul  meanings,  wliicli  we  are  now  defending,  is 
most  palpably  nothing  whatever  else  than  an  attempt 
to  help  out  the  verification  and  mitigate  the  incohe- 
rence of  a  somewhat  confused  and  partially  unrealized 
prophecy.  I^ow,  in  disposing  of  this  idle  but  painfully 
familiar  comment,  we  will  make  no  allusion  to  the  ques- 
tion of  the  four  Apostles,  which,  it  may  be  observed, 
necessitated  in  the  answer  reference  to  the  end  of  the 
world  as  well  as  to  the  end  of  the  Theocracy  (Matt. 
xxiv.  3) ;  we  will  only  take  the  prophecy  as  we  find  it, 
with  its  mingled  allusions  to  a  near  and  to  a  remote 
future,  and  simply  inquire  whether  there  is  any  such 
resemblance,  spiritual  or  otherwise,  as  might  make  ex- 
pressions used  in  reference  to  the  one  almost  inter- 
changeably applicable  to  the  other.  "\Yho  can  doubt 
what  the  answer  must  be  ?  Who  that  takes  into  con- 
sideration the  true  significance  of  the  fall  of  Jerusalem, 
who  that  sees  in  it,  as  every  sober  reader  must  see,  not 
merely  the  fall  of  an  ancient  city,  but  the  destruction 
of  the  visible  seat  of  Jehovah's  worship,  the  enforced 
cessation  of  the  ancient  order  of  things,  the  practical 
abrogation  of  the  Theocracy, — all  closely  synchronous 
with  the  Lord's  first  coming, — who  is  there  that  will 
take  all  these  things  fairly  into  consideration  and  not 
be  ready  to  acknowledge  resemblances  between  the 
end  of  the  fated  city  and  the  issues  of  the  present  dis- 
pensation, sufficiently  mysterious  and  sufficiently  pro- 
found to  warrant  our  even  alternating  between  them 
(we  use  the  studiedly  exaggerated  language  of  oppo- 
nents) the  verses  of  the  Lord's  great  prophecy  ?  Till  it 
can  be  shown  that  the  course  of  things  is  fortuitous, 
that  providential  dispensations  are  a  dream,  and  the 
gradual  development  of  the  counsels  of  God  a  conven- 
ient fiction — till  it  can  be  made  clear  to  demonstration, 
that  there  are  no  profound  harmonies  in  the  Divine 
government,  no  mystical  recurrences  of  foreordered 
combinations,  no  spiritual  affinities  between  the  past 
and  the  present,  no  foreseen  resemblances  in  epochal 
events,  and  no  predestined  counterparts,  the  ground  on 
which  the  reasonable  belief  in  double  meanings  and 


454  -^l^S  ^^  FAITU.  [Eesay  IX. 

double  applications  of  propliecy  lias  been  rightly 
judged  to  rest  will  remain  stable  and  unshaken ;  the 
perspective  character  that  has  been  attributed  to  Scrip- 
tural predictions  will  still  claim  to  be  considered  no 
idle  or  unreal  imagination. 

(2.)  The  subject  oi^  t?/peshas  been  much  dwelt  upon 
by  modern  writers,  and  in  most  cases  with  singular  un- 
fairness. The  popular  mode  of  arguing  on  this  subject 
is  to  select  some  instances  from  early  Christian  writers 
which  are  obviously  fanciful  and  untenable,  to  hold  up 
the  skirts  of  their  folly,  to  display  their  utter  nakedness, 
and  then  to  ask  if  a  system  of  which  these  are  examples 
either  can  or  ought  to  be  regarded  with  any  degree  of 
favour  or  confidence.  If  Justin  tells  us  that  the  king  of 
Assyria  signified  Herod,  and  Jerome  was  of  opinion 
that  by  ChaldaBans  are  meant  Demons,  if  the  scarlet 
thread  of  Rahab  has  been  deemed  to  have  a  hidden 
meaning,  and  the  number  of  Abraham's  followers  has 
been  regarded  as  not  wholly  without  significance,  we 
are  asked  whether  we  can  deem  the  whole  system 
otherwise  than  precarious  and  extravagant,  whether  we 
can  at  all  safely  attribute  to  the  details  of  the  Mosaic 
ritual  a  reference  to  the  ISTew  Testament,  or  really  be- 
lieve that  the  passage  of  the  Red  Sea  can  be  very  cer- 
tainly considered  a  type  of  baptism.  The  ultimate  de- 
sign of  this  mode  of  arguing  will  not  escape  the  intelli- 
gent reader  ; — it  is  sim2)ly  an  endeavour  by  slow  sap 
to  weaken  the  authority  of  son:ie  of  the  writers  of  the 
ISTew  Testament,  and  to  leave  it  to  be  inferred  that  our 
Lord  Himself,  in  recognizing  and  even  giving  sanction 
to  such  applications  of  Scripture  (Matt.  xii.  40,  John 
iii.  14  ;  comp.  ch.  vi.  5S),  either  condescended  to  adopt 
forms  of  illustration  which  He  must  have  felt  to  be  un- 
trustworthy, or  else  really  in  this  did  not  rise  wholly 
above  the  culture  of  His  own  times.  Xow  at  present, 
without  at  all  desiring  to  press  what  we  have  not  yet 
discussed — the  inspiration  of  Scripture — we  do  very 
earnestly  call  upon  those  who  are  not  yet  prepared 
wholly  to  fling  off  their  allegiance  to  Scripture,  to  bear 
in   mind   the  following  lacts : — {a)  That  our  Blessed 


Essay  IX.]  SCEIPTUKE,  AND   ITS  INTEliPIlETATION.  455 

Lord  Himself  reterrecl  to  the  Brazen  Serpent  as  typical 
of  His  beinc:  raised  aloft,  and  that  He  illustrated  the 
mystery  of  His  own  abode  in  the  chambers  of  the  earth 
by  an  event  of  the  past  which  He  Himself  was  pleased 
to  denominate  as  a  sign, — the  only  sign  that  was  to  be 
vouchsafed  to  the  generation  that  then  was  seeking  ibr 
one  ;  (h)  that  the  Evangelists  recognize  the  existence 
and  significance  of  types  in  reference  to  our  Lord  (Matt, 
ii.  15 ;  John  xix.  36);  {c)  that  the  teaching  of  St.  Paul 
is  pervaded  by  references  to  this  form  of  what  has  been 
termed  "acted  prophecies"  (Kom.  v.  14  seq. ;  1  Cor.  v. 
7,  X.  2  seq. ;  Gal.  iv.  24:  seq. ;  Col.  ii.  11) ;  {d)  that  the 
greater  part  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  one  con- 
tinned  elucidation  of  the  spiritual  significance  of  the 
principal  features  of  the  Levitlcal  law:  its  sacrifices, 
rites,  and  priests  w^ere  all  the  shadows  and  typical  re- 
semblances of  good  things  to  come  (Heb.  x.  1) ;  {e)  that 
St.  Peter  plainly  and  distinctly  declares  that  the  water 
of  the  Flood  is  typical  of  baptism  (1  Pet.  iii.  21) ;  {f) 
that  in  the  last  and  most  mysterious  revelation  of  God 
to  man  the  very  realms  of  blessedness  and  glory  are 
designated  by  a  name  and  specified  by  allusions  (Rev. 
xxi.  22)  which  warrant  our  recognizing  in  the  Holy 
City  on  earth,  the  "  Jerusalem  that  now  is,"  a  type  of 
that  Heavenly  City  w^hich  God  hath  prepared  ibr  the 
faithful  (Heb.  xl.  16),  a  similitude  of  the  Jerusalem  that 
is  above,  a  shadow  of  the  incoiTuptible  inheritance  of 
the  servants  and  children  of  God. 

AYhen  we  dwell  calmly  upon  these  things,  when  we 
observe  further  how,  not  only  thus  directly  and  explic- 
itly, but  how,  also,  indirectly  and  by  allusion,  nearly 
every  waiter  in  the  ^ew  Testament  bears  ^vitness  to 
the  existence  and  significance  of  types,  how  it  tinges 
their  language  of  consolation  (Rev.  xxi.  2  seq.),  and 
gives  force  to  their  exhortations  (Heb.  iv.  14) ;  wdien 
we  finally  note  how  the  very  Eternal  Spirit  of  God,  by 
w^hom  they  Avere  inspired,  is  specially  declared  to  have 
vouchsafed  thus  to  involve  in  the  ceremonies  of  the 
past  the  deep  truths  of  the  future  (Heb.  ix.  8), — when 
we  calmly  consider  the  cumulative  force  of  all  these 


456  ^IDS  TO  FAITU.  [EssATlX. 

examples  and  all  these  testimonies,  we  may  perhaps 
be  induced  to  pause  before  we  adopt  the  sweeping- 
statements  that  have  been  made  in  reference  to  the 
whole  system  of  typology.  We  may  admit  that  types 
may  hav^e  been  often  injudiciously  applied,  that  it  may 
be  difficult  to  fix  bounds  to  their  nse  or  to  specify  the 
measm-e  of  their  aptitude,  and  yet  we  may  indeed  se- 
riously ask  for  time  to  consider  whether  such  recogni- 
tions of  the  deeper  meanings  of  Scripture  thns  vouch- 
safed to  US,  and  thus  sanctioned  by  our  Lord  and  His 
Apostleg,  are  to  be  given  np  at  once  because  they  are 
thought  to  come  in  collision  with  modern  views  of 
Scripture  and  modern  canons  of  interj^retation.  Our 
opponents  may  well  be  anxious  to  get  rid  of  the  whole 
system  of  types  ;  we  can  understand  their  anxiety,  we 
can  even  find  reasons  for  the  sort  of  desperation  that 
scruples  not  to  represent  what  was  once  sanctioned  by 
our  Lord  and  His  Apostles  as  now  either  mischievous 
or  inapplicable.  It  is  felt  that  if  typology  is  admitted, 
the  assertion  tliat  Scripture  has  but  one  meaning  is  in- 
validated. It  is  seen  clearly  enough  that  if  it  can  be 
shown,  within  any  reasonable  degree  of  probability, 
that  the  details  of  a  past  dispensation  were  regarded 
by  the  first  teachers  of  Christianity  as  veritable  types 
and  symbols  of  things  that  had  now  come,  then  the  re- 
cognition of  further  and  deeper  meanings  in  Scripture, 
of  secondary  senses  and  ultimate  significations,  must 
directly  and  inevitably  follow,  and  the  rule  that  the 
Bible  is  to  be  interpreted  like  any  other  book  at  once 
be  shown  to  be,  what  it  certainly  is,  inapplicable.  Xeed 
we  wonder  then  that  every  efi'ort  has  been  made  to  de- 
nounce a  system  so  obstructive  to  modern  innovations  ; 
need  we  be  surprised  that  the  rejection  of  what  is  thus 
accredited  has  been  as  persistent  as  it  would  now  seem 
proved  to  be  botli  unreasonable  and  without  success  ? 

(3.)  Our  third  subject  for  consideration,  the  existence 
of  deeper  meanings  in  Scripture,  even  in  what  might 
seem  simple  liistorical  statements,  follows  very  natural- 
ly after  what  has  been  just  discussed.  Here  again  we 
can  adopt  no  more  convincing  mode  of  demonstration 


Essay  IX.]  SCIUPTUKE,  AND  IT3  INTERPRETATION.  451^ 

than  is  supplied  by  an  appeal  to  Scripture.  Yet  we 
may  iiot  lui profitably  make  one  or  two  preliminary 
comments,  hi  the  first  place,  is  not  this  assertion  of  a 
oneness  of  meaning  in  the  written  words  of  an  intelli- 
gent author  open  to  some  discussion  ?  Is  it  at  all  clear, 
even  in  the  case  of  uninspired  writers,  that  the  primary 
and  literal  meaning  is  the  only  meaning  which  is  to  be 
recognized  in  their  words  ?  Is  it  so  wliolly  inconceiv- 
able that  more  meanings  than  one  may  liave  been  actu- 
ally designed  at  the  time  of  writing,  and  that,  conjoint- 
ly with  a  leading  and  primarj^  meaning,  a  secondary 
and  subordinate  meaning  may  have  been  felt,  recog- 
nized, and  intended?  IS' ay,  can  we  be  perfectly  cer- 
tain that  even  words  may  not  have  been  specially  or 
instinctively  chosen  Vv'hich  should  leave  this  secondary 
meaning  fairly  distinct  and  fairly  recognizable?  It 
would  not  be  difficult  to  substantiate  the  justice  of 
these  queries  by  actual  examples  from  the  writings  of 
any  of  the  greater  authors  whether  of  our  own  or  some 
other  country.  Still  less  difficult  would  it  be  to  show 
that  in  very  many  passages  meanings  must  certainly  be 
admitted  which  it  may  be  probable  were  not  intended 
by  the  writer,  but  which  nevertheless  by  their  force  and 
pertinence  make  it  frequently  doubtful  whether  what 
lias  been  assumed  to  be  the  primary  meaning  of  the 
words  is  really  to  be  deemed  so,  and  whether  what  is 
judged  to  be  an  application  may  not  really  represent 
the  truest  aspects  of  the  mind  and  intentions  of  the 
author. 

Let  us  add  this  second  remark,  that  the  instances 
in  which  words  have  been  found  to  involve  meanings, 
not  recognized  at  the  time  by  reader  or  by  writer,  but 
which  after-circumstances  have  shown  were  really  to 
be  regarded  as  meanings,  are  by  no  means  few  or  ex- 
ceptional. The  whole  group  of  illustrations  supplied 
by  "  ominata  verba,"  the  whole  class  of  cases  which 
belong  to  that  sort  of  unconscious  prescience  which  is 
often  found  in  minds  of  higher  strain,  the  various  in- 
stances where  glimpses  of  yet  undiscovered  relations 
have  given  a  tinge  to  expressions  which  will  only  be 
20 


458  ^'^^^  ^^  FAITH.  [Essay  IX 

fully  understood  and  realized  wlien  those  relations  are 
themselves  fully  known, — all  these  things,  and  many 
more  than  these,  might  be  adduced  as  illustrative  of 
the  deeper  meanings  that  are  often  found  to  lie  in  the 
words  of  mere  mnnspired  men.  Such  meanings  neither 
they  nor  their  own  contemporaries  may  have  distinctly 
recognized,  but  meanings  they  are  notwithstanding ; 
not  merely  applications  or  extensions,  but  meanings 
in  the  simple  and  regular  acceptation  of  the  term. 
How  this  is  to  be  accounted  for,  w^e  are  not  called  upon 
to  show.  We  will  not  speculate  how  far  the  great  and 
the  good  of  every  age  and  nation  may  have  been  moved 
by  the  inworking  Spirit  of  God  to  declare  truths  of 
wider  application  than  they  themselves  may  have  felt 
or  realized ;  w^e  will  not  seek  to  estimate  the  varying 
degrees  of  that  power  of  partially  foreseeing  future 
relations  wdiich  long  and  patient  study  of  the  past  and 
the  present  has  sometimes  been  found  to  impart.  All 
such  things  are  probably  beyond  our  grasp,  and  would 
most  likely  be  found  to  elude  our  present  powers  and 
present  means  of  appreciation.  With  reasons  we  will 
not  embarrass  ourselves  ;  we  will  be  satisfied  with  sim- 
ply calling  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  existence  of 
such  phenomena  as  that  of  words  having  deeper  and 
fuller  meanings  than  they  were  understood  to  have  at 
first  is  not  only  not  to  be  denied,  but  may  even  be 
deemed  matter  of  somethins^  more  than  occasional  ex- 
perience. 

The  two  foregoing  observations  will,  perhaps,  have 
in  some  measure  prepared  us  for  forming  a  more  just 
estimate  of  the  further  and  second  meanings  that  have 
been  attributed  to  the  words  of  Scripture.  If  it  be 
admitted  that  some  of  the  phenomena  to  which  we  have 
alluded  are  occasionally  to  be  recognized  in  purely 
human  writings,  is  it  altogether  strange  that  in  a  reve- 
lation from  God  the  same  should  exist  in  fuller  measures, 
and  under  still  clearer  aspects  ?  If  the  many-sidedness, 
mobility,  and  varied  powers  of  combination  existiug 
in  the  human  mind,  appear  at  times  to  invest  words 
written  or  spoken  with  a  significance  of  a  fuller  and 


Essay  IX.]  SCKIPTUEE,  AND  ITS  INTEKrRETATION.  459 

deeper  kind  than  may  at  first  he  rccoo;nized,  arc  we  to 
be  surprised  if  something  similar  in  kind,  but  liigher 
in  degree,  is  to  be  observed  in  tlie  Language  of  lloly 
Scripture  ?  Is  the  Divine  mind  not  to  liave  influences 
which  arc  conceded  to  the  human  ?  Are  the  words 
of  Prophets  or  Evangelists  to  be  less  pregnant  in  mean- 
ing, or  more  circumscribed  in  their  applications,  than 
those  of  poets  and  philoso2:»liers  ?  Without  assuming 
one  attribute  in  the  Scrij^ture  beyond  what  all  our 
more  reasonable  opponents  would  be  willing  to  concede, 
without  claiming  more  for  it  than  to  be  considered  a 
revelation  from  God,  a  communication  from  the  Divine 
mind  to  the  minds  and  hearts  of  men,  we  may  justly 
claim  some  hearing  for  this  form  of  the  d  jy^iori  argu- 
ment ;  we  may  with  reason  ask  all  fair  disputants  whether 
they  are  prepared  positively  to  deny,  in  the  case  of  a 
communication  directly  or  even  indirectly  from  God, 
the  probability  of  our  finding  there  some  enhancement 
of  the  higher  characteristics  and  more  remarkable  phe- 
nomena that  have  been  recognized  in  communications  of 
man  to  men  ? 

When  we  leave  these  a  jjriori  considerations,  and 
turn  to  definite  examples  and  illustrations,  our  antici- 
pations cannot  be  said  to  have  disappointed  us.  We 
have  really  an  affluence  of  examples  of  second  and 
deeper  meanings  being  deliberately  assigned  to  pas- 
sages of  Scripture  that  might  have  been  otherwise 
deemed  to  have  only  the  one  simple  or  historical  mean- 
ing that  seems  first  to  present  itself.  Let  us  select  two 
or  three  instances.  Is  it  j)ossible  to  deny  that  our  Lord 
Himself  discloses,  in  what  might  have  been  deemed  a 
mere  title  of  Jehovah  under  llis  aspects  of  relation  to 
favoured  w^orshippers,  a  meaning  so  full  and  so  deep 
that  it  formed  the  basis  of  an  argument  (Matt.  xxii.  31 
scq.  ;  Mark  xii.  24  seq.  ;  Luke  xx.  37  scq)  'i  The  famil- 
iar titular  designation  is  shown  to  be  the  vehicle  of  a 
spiritual  truth  of  the  widest  application  ;  the  apparently 
mere  recapitulation  of  the  names  of  a  son,  a  father,  and 
a  grandfather,  in  connexion  with  the  God  whose  ser- 
vants they  were,  and  whom  they  worshipped,  is  not 


460  -^^^^  ^^  TAITII.  [Essay  IX. 

only  urged  as  proving  a  fundamental  doctrine,  but  is 
tacitly  acknowledged  to  have  done  so  by  gainsay ers 
and  opponents  (Lnke  xx.  39).  And  further,  let  it  be 
observed,  that  it  is  clearly  implied  that  this  was  no 
deeply-hidden  meaning,  no  profound  interpretation, 
which  it  might  require  a  special  revelation  to  disclose, 
but  that  it  was  a  meaning  which  really  ought  to  have 
been  recognized  by  a  deeper  reader, — at  any  rate  that 
not  to  have  done  so  argued  as  3~ilain  an  ignorance  of 
the  "Written  Word  as  it  did  of  the  power  and  opera- 
tions of  God  (Matt.  xxii.  29).  Let  this  really  "  preroga- 
tive "  example  be  fairly  considered  and  properly  esti- 
mated, and  then  let  it  be  asked  if  the  existence  of  deeper 
meanings  in  Scrij3ture  can  consistently  be  denied  by 
any  who  profess  a  belief  in  our  Lord  J  esus  Christ.  It 
seems  to  ns  that  this  is  a  plain  case  of  a  dilemma : 
either  with  Strauss  and  Ilase  we  must  regard  the  argu- 
ment as  an  example  of  Eabbinical  soj)histry, — and  so, 
as  Meyer  reminds  us,  be  prepared  to  sacrifice  the  char- 
acter and  dignity  of  our  Lord, — or  we  must  admit  that, 
in  some  cases  at  least,  there  is  more  in  Scripture  than 
the  mere  literal  sense  of  the  words. 

Such  an  example  opens  the  way  for  the  introduction 
of  others,  wdiich,  without  this  prerogative  instance,  could 
not  have  been  strongly  urged,  except  on  assumj)tions 
which,  in  our  present  position  in  the  argument,  it  would 
not  be  logically  consistent  to  make.  By  being  associ- 
ated, however,  with  the  present  example,  they  certainly 
seem  to  be  of  some  force  and  validity  in  confirming  our 
present  assertion,  and,  to  say  the  very  least,  can  be 
more  easily  explained  on  that  hypothesis  than  on  any 
other  that  has  yet  been  assigned.  Let  us  specify  Matt. 
ii.  15.  Now  the  question  presents  itself  in  the  follow- 
ing form : — Is  not  this  an  example  furnished  by  the 
Apostle  of  what  we  have  already  seen  must  be  recog- 
nized in  an  example  vouchsafed  l)y  his  Lord  ?  Is  not 
this  a  case  of  deeper  meaning  ?  Do  not  the  words  of 
Ilosea,  the  second  meaning  of  which  was  doubtless  not 
more  apparent  even  to  the  proj'jhet  himself  than  it  was 
to  his  earlier  readers,  seem  only  to  have  a  simple  his- 


Essay  IX.]  SCKU'TUKE,   AND   ITS   INTEKniKTATION.  4QI 

torical  reference  to  tlic  cartlily  Israel  ?  and  yet  do  tliey 
not  really  involve,  a  furtlier  and  typical  reference  to 
Ilini  who  was  truly  and  essentially  what  Israel  was  gra- 
ciously denominated  (Exod.  iv.  22  ;  comp.  Jerem.  xxxi. 
0),  and  of  whom  Israel  was  a  type  and  a  shadow  ?  So, 
at  any  rate,  St.  Matthew  plainly  asserts.  AYhich,  then, 
of  these  hypotheses  do  we  think  most  probable, — that 
St.  Matthew  erroneously  ascribed  a  meaning  to  words 
which  they  do  not  and  were  not  intended  to  bear,  that 
the  two  chapters  are  an  interpolation  (for  such  an  hypo- 
thesis has  been  advanced),  or  that  they  supply  an  in- 
stance of  a  second  and  typical  meaning  in  words  of  a 
simply  historical  aspect,  and  that  a  truth  is  here  disclosed 
by  an  Apostle  similar  to  what  wx  have  already  seen 
has  been  clearly  disclosed  by  our  Lord  ? 

Let  us  take  yet  another,  and  that,  as  it  might  bo 
thought,  a  very  hopeless  instance.  St.  Paul,  in  his 
Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  (ch.  iv.  8),  not  only  makes  a 
citation  from  a  Psalm,  wdiicli  at  the  part  in  question 
appears  to  have  a  simple  historical  reference  to  some 
event  of  the  time  (perhaps  the  taking  of  Eabbah),  but 
even  alters  the  w^ords  of  the  original,  so  as  to  make  its 
application  to  our  Lord  more  pertinent  and  telling. 
What  are  we  to  say  of  such  a  case  ?  Does  it  not  really 
look  like  an  instance  of  almost  unwarrantable  accom- 
modation ?  Does  it  not  seem  as  if  we  had  now  fairly 
fallen  upon  the  point  of  our  own  sword,  and  that,  in 
citing  an  example  of  a  second  meaning,  we  had  unwit- 
tingly selected  one  in  which  the  very  alteration  shows 
that  the  words  did  not  originally  have  the  meaning  now 
attributed  to  them  ?  Before  we  thus  yield,  let  us  at 
any  rate  state  the  case,  and  leave  the  fair  reader  to  form 
his  own  opinion.  Without  at  present  assuming  the 
existence  of  any  influence  which  would  have  directly 
2)revented  the  Apostle  from  so  seriously  misunder- 
standing and  so  gravely  misapplying  a  passage  of  the 
Old  Testament,  and  only  assuming  it  as  proved  that 
there  is  one  authentic  instance  of  words  of  Scripture 
bearing  a  furtlier  meaning  than  meets  tlie  eye,  we  now 
ask  "which  is  to  be  judged  as  most  likely :  that  the 


462  -A-IDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  IX. 

Apostle  to  substantiate  a  statementj  wliicli  coiikl  liave 
been  easily  substantiated  by  other  passages,  deliberately 
altered  a  portion  of  Scripture  wliicli  bad  no  reference 
to  the  matter  before  him,  or  that  he  rightly  assigned 
to  a  seemingly  historical  passage  from  a  Psalm,  which 
(be  it  observed),  in  its  original  scope,  has  every  appear- 
ance of  being  prophetic  and  Messianic,  a  deej)er  mean- 
ing than  the  words  seem  to  bear  (such  a  meaning  being 
in  one  case,  at  least,  admitted  to  exist),  and  that  he 
altered  the  form  of  the  words  to  make  more  palpable 
and  evident  the  meaning  which  he  knew  they  involved  ? 
AYe  have  no  anxiety  as  to  the  decision  in  the  case  of 

any  calm-judging  and  nnbiassed  reader One 

further  remark  we  may  make  in  conclusion,  and  it  is 
a  remark  of  some  little  importance,  viz.,  that  if  the 
present  instance  be  deemed  an  example  of  Scripture 
having  a  second  and  deeper,  as  well  as  a  first  and  more 
simple  meaning,  it  mnst  also  be  regarded  as  an  exam- 
ple of  an  authoritative  change  in  the  exact  words  of  a 
quotation,' — the  change  being  designed  to  bring  up  the 
underlying  meaning  which  was  known  to  exist,  and  to 
23lace  it  with  more  distinctness  before  the  mind  of  the 
general  reader. 

III.  Having  thus,  as  it  would  seem,  substantiated 
our  assertion  that  deeper  meanings  lie  in  Scripture 
than  appear  on  the  surface,  and  that  this  may  be 
properly  considered  as  in  part  accounting  for  the 
existence  of  some  of  those  dilficulties  and  diversities 
which  are  met  wdth  in  Scripture  interpretation,  we  now 
pass  to  the  third  assertion  relative  to  the  subject,  viz., 
that  Scripture  is  divinely  itwjnred. 

Here  we  enter  upon  a  wide  subject,  which  may 
with  reason  claim  for  itself  a  separate  and  independent 
essay,  and  which  certainly  ought  fully  to  be  disposed  of 
before  any  rules  bearing  upon  interpretation  can  prop- 
erly be  laid  down.  As  a  longer  discussion  of  this  subject 
will  be  found  in  another  ]-)ortion  of  our  volume,  we 
will  here  only  make  a  very  few  general  remarks  upon 
inspiration  as  immediately  bearing  upon  interpretation, 
and  more  especially  upon  the  estimate  formed  of  its 


Essay  IX.]  SCRirTUEE,  AND  ITS  INTERrEETATION.  4(53 

nature  and  extent  by  the  advocates  of  tlie  system  of 
Scriptural  exegesis  now  under  our  consideration. 

In  the  outset,  let  it  be  said  that  we  heartily  concur 
with  the  majority  of  our  opponents  in  rejecting  all 
theories  of  inspiration,  and  in  sweeping  aside  all  those 
distinctions  and  definitions  which,  only  in  too  many 
cases,  have  been  merely  called  forth  by  emergencies, 
and  drawn  up  for  no  other  purpose  than  to  meet  real 
and  supposed  difticulties.  The  remark  probably  is 
just,  that  most  of  the  current  explanations  err  more 
especially  in  attempting  to  define  what,  though  real, 
is  incapable  of  being  defined  in  an  exact  manner. 
Hence  all  such  terms  as  "  mechanical "  and  "  dy- 
namical" inspiration,  and  all  the  theories  that  have 
grown  round  these  epithets, — all  such  distinctions  as 
inspirations  of  superintendence,  inspirations  of  sug- 
gestion, and  so  forth, — all  attempts  again  to  draw  lines 
of  demarcation  between  the  inspiration  of  the  books 
of  Scripture  themselves  and  the  inspiration  of  the 
authors  of  which  those  books  w^ere  results,  may  be 
most  profitably  dismissed  from  our  thoughts,  and  the 
whole  subject  calmly  reconsidered  from  what  may  be 
termed  a  Scriptural  point  of  view.  The  holy  Volume 
itself  shall  explain  to  us  the  nature  of  that  influence 
by  which  it  is  pervaded  and  quickened. 

8.  Thus  far  we  are  perfectly  in  accord  with  our 
opponents.  We  are  agreed  on  both  sides  that  there  is 
such  a  thing  as  inspiration  in  reference  to  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  we  are  further  agreed  that  the  Scriptures 
themselves  are  the  best  sources  of  information  on  the 
subject.  Here,  however,  all  agreement  completely 
ceases.  When  we  invite  our  opponents  to  go  with  us 
to  the  Scriptures  to  discuss  their  statements  on  the 
subject  before  us,  and  to  compare  the  inferences  and 
deductions  that  either  side  may  make  from  them,  we 
at  once  find  that  by  an  appeal  to  Scripture  we  and  our 
opponents  mean  something  utterly  and  entirely  dif- 
ferent. TFd  mean  a  consideration  of  what  Scripture 
says  about  itself:  we  find  that  thfij  mean  a  stock- 
taking of  its  errors  and  inaccuracies,  of  its  antagonisms 


464  -^ID^  ^^  FAITH.  [Essay  IX. 

witli  science  and  its  oppositions  to  liistoiy, — all  which 
they  tell  iis  must  first  bo  estimated,  and  with  all  which 
they  urge,  that  inspiration,  he  it  whatever  it  may, 
mnst  be  reconcilable  and  harmonized.  In  a  word,  both 
sides  have  started  from  the  first  on  widely  different 
assumptions.  We  assume  that  what  Scripture  says  is 
trustworthy,  and  so  conceive  that  it  may  be  fittingly 
appealed  to  as  a  witness  concerning  its  own  character- 
istics ;  thei/  assume  that  it  abounds  in  errors  and  in- 
congruities, and  suggest  that  the  number  and  nature 
of  these  ought  to  bo  generally  ascertained  before  any 
further  step  can  be  taken,  or  any  opinion  safely  arrived 
at  on  the  wdiole  subject.  Such  seems  a  fair  estimate  of 
the  position  and  attitude  of  the  two  contending  parties. 

If  this  statement  of  our  relative  positions  be  just, 
it  seems  perfectly  clear  that  several  different  lines  of 
argument  may  be  adopted.  We  may  examine  the 
grounds  on  which  their  assumption  rests,  or  endeavour 
to  establish  the  validity  of  our  own.  We  may  deny 
that  any  errors  or  inaccuracies  exist,  and  throw  upon 
them  the  onus  prohvidi,  or  we  may  take  the  most 
popular  and  telling  instances  in  their  enumeration  and 
endeavour  to  discover  by  fair  investigation  how  far 
they  deserve  their  position,  and  how  far  prejudice  and 
exaggeration  may  not  have  been  at  work  on  their  side, 
as  conservatism  and  accommodation  on  ours.  All 
these  are  courses  which  may  be  adopted  with  more  or 
less  advantage,  but  any  one  of  which  would  occupy 
fiir  more  space  than  we  can  afford  for  this  portion  of 
our  subject.  We  must  satisfy  ourselves,  on  the  present 
occasion,  wath  making,  on  the  one  hand,  a  few  aflirma- 
tive  comments  upon  the  nature,  degree,  and  limits  of 
the  inspiration  which  w^e  assign  to  the  Scripture  ;  and 
on  the  other  hand,  a  few  negative  comments  upon 
counter-statements  advanced  by  oj^ponents,  wdiich  seem 
more  than  usually  untrustworthy. 

To  begin  with  the  negative  side,  let  us  observe,  in 
the  first  place,  that  nothing  can  really  be  less  tenable 
than  the  assertion  that  there  is  no  foundation  in  the 
Gospels  or  Epistles  for  any  of  the  higher  or  super- 


Essay  IX.]  SCTJPTUEE,  A^D  ITS  INTEIirUETATION.  4Q5 

natural  views  of  inspiration.  It  is  a  perfectly  intel- 
li«^ible  line  of  argument  to  assert  tliat  for  the  testimony 
of  any  book  upon  its  own  nature  and  characteristics  to 
be  Avortli  anything,  it  must  first  be  shown  that  the  book 
can  fully  be  relied  on :  it  is  quite  consistent  with  fair 
reasoning  to  refuse  to  accept  as  final  or  conclusive  the 
evidence  of  what  it  may  be  contended  has  been  shown 
to  be  a  damaged  w^itness.  Such  modes  of  argument 
are  quite  fair  and  intelligible,  and  as  such  we  have  no 
fault  to  find  with  them;  but  to  make  at  the  outset  an 
assertion,  such  as  we  are  now  considering, — to  prej- 
udice the  minds  of  the  inexperienced  by  an  aflirma- 
tion,  which,  if  believed,  cannot  fail  to  produce  the 
strongest  possible  effect,  and  which  all  the  time  is  the 
very  reverse  of  what  is  the  fact,  is  indeed  very  like 
that  "random  scattering  of  uneasiness''  which  has 
been  attributed  to  our  opponents,'-  and  which  such 
cases  as  the  present  go  very  far  to  substantiate.  It  is 
scarcely  possible  that  those  who  make  such  assertions 
can  be  ignorant  of  the  terms  in  which  our  Lord  is 
represented  by  the  Gospels  to  have  spoken  about  the 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament.  It  cannot  surely  be 
forgotten  that  He  said  that  they  "  could  not  be 
broken  "  (John  x.  35),  and  that  when  he  so  spake  He 
was  using  Scripture  in  a  manner  that  almost  vouched 
for  its  verbal  and  literal  infallibility.  It  cannot  have 
been  overlooked  that  when  Ho  was  citing  the  words  of 
David  He  defined  the  divine  influence  under  which 
tliose  words  were  uttered  (Mark  xii.  30).  Does  not  an 
Evangelist  record  His  promise  to  His  Apostles  that 
the  Holy  Gliost  "  should  teach  them  all  things,  and 
bring  all  things  which  He  said  to  them  to  their  re- 
membrance" (John  xiv.  26)?  and  does  not  that  same 
Evangelist  mention  the  yet  more  inclusive  promise 
that  the  same  Eternal  Spirit  should  lead  the  Disciples 
into  *'tlie  whole  truth"  (John  xvi.  13)?  and  are  such 
words  to  be  explained  away  or  to  be  limited?  Does 
not  the  same  writer  further  tell  us  that  the  Holy 
Ghost  was  almost  visibly  given  to  the  Apostles  by  the 

*  Sec  Moberlv,  Preface  to  'Sermons  on  the  Beatitudes,'  p.  ii. 
20* 


466  -^I^S  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  IX 

Lord  Himself  (John  xx.  22)?  and  does  not  anotlier 
Evangelist  tell  of  the  completed  fulness  of  that  gift,  and 
of  men  so  visibly  tilled  with  the  Holy  Spirit  that  the 
lips  of  bystanders  and  strangers  bore  their  ready  and 
amazed  testimony  ?  Have  we  no  foundation  for  assert- 
ing a  higher  inspiration  when  eleven  men  are  told  by 
a  parting  Lord  that  they  are  to  be  his  witnesses,  and 
that  tliey  are  to  receive  supernatural  assistance  for 
their  mission  ?  Is  testimony  to  be  confined  to  words 
spoken,  and  to  be  denied  to  words  written  ?  Did  the 
power  that  glowed  in  the  heart  of  the  speaker  die  out 
when  he  took  u]3  the  pen  of  the  writer?  Was  not, 
again,  the  "demonstration  of  the  Spirit "  laid  claim  to 
by  St.  Paul  (1  Cor.  ii.  4);  was  it  not  "  God's  wisdom" 
that  he  spake  (ver.  7)  ?  Does  he  not  plainly  say  that 
the  things  "  which  God  prepared  for  those  that  love 
Him,"  His  purposes  of  mercy  and  counsels  of  love, 
were  revealed  to  him  by  God  through  the  agency  of 
the  Spirit  (ver.  10)?  and  does  he  not  enhance  his 
declaration  not  only  by  affirmatively  stating  from 
whom  his  teachiug  was  directly  im23arted,  but  by 
stating,  on  the  negative  side,  that  to  man's  wisdom  he 
owed  it  not  ?  Yea,  and  lest  it  should  be  thought  that 
such  high  prerogatives  belonged  only  to  words  spoken 
by  the  lips,  does  not  the  same  Apostle  guard  himself, 
as  it  were,  by  claiming  for  his  written  words  an  origin 
equally  Divine  ?  and  does  he  not  make  the  recognition 
of  this  a  very  test  of  illumination  and  spirituality 
(1  Cor.  xiv.  37)  ?  AYe  pause,  not  from  lack  of  further 
statements,  but  from  the  feeling  that  quite  enough  has 
been  said  to  lead  any  fair  reader  to  pronounce  the 
assertion  of  there  being  "no  foundation"  in  the 
Gospels  or  Epistles  for  any  of  the  higher  or  super- 
natural views  of  inspiration  contrary  to  evidence,  and 
perhaps  even  to  admit  that  such  assertions,  where 
ignorance  cannot  be  pleaded  in  extenuation,  are  not  to 
be  deemed  consistent  with  iair  and  creditable  argu- 
ment. To  deny  the  worth  or  validity  of  such  testimony 
is  perfectly  compatible  witli  fair  controversy ;  to  deny 
its  existence  in  the  teeth  of  such  evidence,  —  and  such 


Essay  IX.]  SCKIPTUKE,  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATION.  4(57 

evidence  is  known  and  patent,  —  can  only  be  designed 
to  give  a  bias  to  a  reader,  and  to  raise  up  antecedent 
prejudices  in  reference  to  subjects  and  opinions  after- 
wards to  be  introduced.  How  far  such  a  mode  of 
dealing  Adth  grave  questions  is  just  or  defensible,  we 
will  leave  others  to  decide. 

Let  us  make  a  second  remark  of  a  somewhat  simi- 
lar character,  and  earnestly  protest  against  hazy  and 
indefinite  modes  of  speaking  about  the  testimony  of 
the  Church  in  reference  to  the  doctrine  of  inspiration. 
Whether  the  Church  is  right  or  wrong  in  its  estimate 
of  the  nature  and  limits  of  this  gift,  is  certainly  a  ques- 
tion which  tliose  who  feel  the  necessity  of  inquiry  are 
perfectly  at  liberty  to  entertain.  We  may  pity  a  state 
of  mind  that  is  not  moved  by  such  authority,  and  Ave 
may  suspect  it  to  be  ill-balanced ;  but  we  do  not  com- 
plain of  such  a  mode  of  proceeding.  If  a  man  wishes 
to  find  out  whether  the  Early  Church,  for  instance,  is 
right  or  wrong  in  its  estimate  of  a  principle  or  a  doc- 
trine, let  him  (in  a  serious  and  anxious  spirit)  com- 
mence his  investigation,  but  let  him  not  seek  by  vague 
and  indefinite  language  to  make  it  first  doubtful  whether 
the  Early  Church  really  did  form  any  estimate  at  all, — 
when  that  estimate  is  plainly  set  down  in  black  and 
white  in  fifty  difterent  treatises.  Let  us,  at  any  rate, 
have  a  clear  understanding  on  the  question  at  issue, 
and  agree  as  honest  men  to  throw  no  doubts  upon  sim- 
ple matters  of  simplest  fact.  ]N"ow,  when  we  are  told 
that  the  term  inspiration  is  but  of  yesterday,  and  more 
especially  that  the  question  of  inspiration  was  not  de- 
termined by  Fathers  of  the  Church,  we  do  seem  justi- 
fied ill  protesting  against  such  really  unfair  attempts  to 
gain  over  those  who  have  neither  the  time,  the  knowl- 
edge, nor  perhaps  the  will,  to  test  the  truth  of  the  asser- 
tion. Let  there  be  no  mistake  on  this  subject.  The 
Fathers  of  the  Church  may  be  right  or  they  may  be 
wrong ;  but,  at  any  rate,  on  this  topic  they  have  spoken 
most  frequently  and  most  plainly,  and  if  any  question 
in  the  world  may  be  considered  determined  by  them 
this  certainly  is  one.    The  Apostolical  Fatliors  term  the 


468  -A-IDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  IX. 

Scriptures  "the  true  sayings"  of  the  Holy  Ghost  (Cleni. 
Eom.  ad  Cor.  i.  45).  In  qiioting  j^assages  from  the  Okl 
Testament  they  often  use  the  significant  formuhi  "  the 
Holy  Ghost  saith."  Those  that  followed  them  used 
their  language.  Justin  Martyr  describes  th^  nature  of 
inspiration,  and  even  hints  at  its  limits  {Cohort.  §  8) ; 
Irenseus  speaks  of  the  Scriptures  as  "  spoken  by  the 
Word  of  God  and  His  Spirit"  {Hear.  ii.  28.  2);  and 
even  attributes  to  the  foresight  of  the  Eternal  Spirit  the 
choice  of  this  rather  than  that  mode  of  expression  in 
the  opening  words  of  St.  Matthew's  Gospel  {Ilcer.  iii. 
16.  2).  In  quoting  a  prophet,  Clement  of  Alexandria 
pauses  to  correct  himself,  and  say  it  was  not  so  much 
the  prophet  as  the  Holy  Spirit  in  him  {Cohort.  §  8,  p. 
^^\  and  on  the  question  of  Scripture  infallibility  and 
perfection  he  is  no  less  j)recise  and  definite  {Cohort.  §9, 
p.  68 ;  Strom,  ii.  p.  432,  vii.  p.  897,  ed.  Potter).  Ter- 
tullian  and  Cyprian  carry  onward  the  common  senti- 
ment ;  those  who  follow  them  reiterate  the  same  so  fre- 
quently and  so  definitively  that  we  become  embar- 
rassed by  the  very  affluence  of  our  examples.  Euse- 
bius  of  Ccesarea  deals  even  with  technicalities,  and 
brands  those  who  dared  to  say  that  the  writers  of 
Scripture  put  one  name  in  the  place  of  another  {Com- 
orient,  m  Psalm,  xxxiii.,  ed.  Montf.).  Augustine  states 
most  explicitly  his  views  on  the  whole  subject,  and 
asserts  the  infallibility  of  Scripture  in  language  which 
the  strongest  asserter  of  the  so-called  bibliolatry  of  the 
day  could  not  desire  to  see  made  more  definite  or  un- 
qualified (see  for  example  Epist.  Ixxxii.  3,  torn.  ii.  p. 
285,  ed.  Bened.  2).  .  .  Again  we  pause.  We  could  con- 
tinue such  quotations  almost  indefinitely.  We  could  put 
our  fingers  positively  on  hundreds  of  such  passages  in 
the  writings  of  the  Fathers  of  the  first  five  or  six  cen- 
turies ;  \YQ,  could  quote  the  language  of  early  Councils ; 
we  could  point  to  the  silent  testimony  of  early  contro- 
versies, each  side  claiming  Scripture  to  be  that  from 
which  there  could  be  no  appeal ;  we  could  even  call  in 
lieretics,  and  prove  from  their  own  defences  of  their 
own  tenets,  from  their  own  admissions  and  their  own 


Essay  IX.]  SCKirTUKE,  AND  ITS  INTEKPEETATION.  4(39 

assumptions,  that  the  inspiration  of  Scri2:>ture  vras  of 
all  subjects  one  that  was  conceived  thoroughly  settled 
and  agreed  npon.  Enough,  however,  has  perhaps  been 
said,  enough  quoted,  to  place  the  matter  beyond  tloubt, 
and  to  make  this  perfectly  certain, — that  what  are 
called  high  views  of  inspiration  were  entertained  al- 
most unanimously  by  the  earlier  writers  of  the  Church. 
So  obvious,  indeed,  is  the  fact  that  writers  like  Glrorer 
not  only  concede  the  fact  of  the  agreement  of  the  early 
writers,  and  admit  the  strong  opinions  they  held  on  the 
subject,  but  nse  it  as  a  very  ground  of  reproach  against 
them,  and  call  npon  ns  to  wonder  how  men  who  enter- 
tained such  high  views  on  the  inspiration  of  Scripture 
could  j)ossibly  be  such  arbitrary  and  nnfaithful  inter- 
preters. 

A  third  remark  may  be  made  on  the  negative  side 
by  way  of  complaint  that  we  find  so  little  weight  as- 
signed to  the  subjective  argument,  as  it  may  be  termed, 
for  the  inspiration  of  Scripture.  In  the  sceptical  writ- 
ings of  the  day  the  argument  is  rarely  stated  except  to 
be  dealt  with  as  a  form  of  a  natural  but  not  very  harm- 
less illusion.  Yet  it  is  an  argument  of  the  greatest  force 
and  importance,  and  an  argnment  which,  if  rightly 
handled,  it  is  much  easier  to  set  aside  than  to  answer. 
Is  it  nothing  that  the  Bible  has  spoken  to  millions  npon 
millions  of  hearts,  as  it  were  with  the  very  voice  of 
God  Himself?  Have  not  its  words  burned  within  till 
men  have  seen  palpably  the  Divine  in  that  which  spake 
to  them?  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  convictions  on  the  nature 
of  the  Scriptures  deepen  with  deepening  study  of  them? 
Ask  the  simple  man  to  whom  the  Bible  has  long  be- 
come the  daily  friend  and  counsellor,  who  reads  and 
applies  what  he  reads  as  far  as  his  natural  jiowers  ena- 
ble him  ;  ask  him  whether  longer  and  more  continued 
study  has  altered  to  any  extent  his  estimate  of  the 
Book  as  a  Divine  revelation.  What  is  the  invariable 
answer?  The  Book  ''has  found  him  ;"  it  has  consoled 
him  in  sorrows  for  which  there  seemed  no  consolation 
on  this  side  the  grave  ;  it  has  wiped  away  tears  that  it 
seemed  could  only  be  wiped    away  in  that  far  land 


^HQ  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  IX. 

where  sadness  shall  be  no  more ;  it  has  pleaded  gently 
during  long  seasons  of  spiritual  coldness  ;  it  has  infused 
streno-th  in  hours  of  weakness ;  it  has  calmed  in  mo- 
ments of  excitement;  it  has  given  to  better  emotions  a 
permanence,  and  to  stirred-up  feelings  a  reality  ;  it  has 
made  itself  felt  to  be  what  it  is ;  out  of  the  abundance 
of  his  heart  the  mouth  speaks,  and  he  tells  ns  with  all 
the  accumulated  convictions  of  an  honest  mind,  that  if 
he  once  deemed  the  Bible  to  be  full}^  inspired  on  the  tes- 
timony of  others,  now  he  knows  it  on  evidence  that  has 
been  brought  home  to  his  own  soul.  He  has  now  long 
had  the  witness  in  himself,  and  that  witness  he  feels 
and  knows  is  unchangeably  and  enduringly  true. 

Ask,  again,  the  professed  student  of  Scripture,  the 
scholar,  the  divine,  the  interpreter,  one  who,  to  what 
we  may  term  the  testimony  of  the  soul,  in  the  case  of 
the  less  cultivated  reader,  can  add  the  testimony  of  the 
mind  and  the  spirit, — ask  such  a  one  whether  increased 
familiarity  with  Scripture  has  quickened  or  obscured 
his  perception  of  the  Divine  within  it,  whether  it  has 
led  him  to  higher  or  to  lower  views  of  inspiration. 
Have  not,  w^e  may  perhaps  anxiously  ask,  the  difficul- 
ties of  Scripture  w^earied  him,  its  seeming  discordances 
perplexed,  its  obscurities  depressed  him?     Have  not 
the  tenor  of  its  arguments,  and  the  seeming  want  of 
coherence  and  connexion  in  adjacent  sentences,  some- 
times   awakened    uneasy   and   disquieting    thoughts? 
What  is   almost  invariably  the   answer? — "No;   far 
otherwise."     Deepened  study  has  brought  its  blessing 
and  its  balm.     It  has  shown  how  what  might  seem  the 
greatest  difficulties  often  turn  merely  upon  our  ignor- 
ance of  one  or  two  unrecorded  facts  or  relations ;  it  has 
conducted  to  standing-points  wliere  in  a  moment  all 
that  has  hitherto  seemed  confused  and  distorted  has 
arranged  itself  in  truest  symmetry  and  in  the  fairest 
perspective.     In  many  an  obscure  passage  our  student 
will  tell  us  how  the  light  has  ofttimes  suddenly  broken, 
how  he  has  been  clieered  by  being  permitted  to  recog- 
nize and  identify  the  commingling  of  human  weakness 
and  Divine  power,  the  mighty  revelation  almost  too 


Essay  IX.]  SCRIPTUEE,  AND  ITS  INTERPEETATION.  4^^ 

great  for  mortal  utterance,  the  "earthen  vessel"  abnost 
parting  asunder  from  the  greatness  and  abundance  of 
the  heavenly  treasure  committed  to  it.  lie  will  tell 
us,  again,  how  in  many  a  portion  where  the  logical 
connexion  has  seemed  suspended  or  doubtful, — in  one 
of  those  discourses,  for  instance,  of  his  Lord  as  re- 
corded by  St.  John, — the  true  connexion  has  at  length 
slowly  and  mysteriously  disclosed  itself,  how  he  has 
perceived  and  realized  all.  For  a  wliile  he  has  felt 
himself  thinking  as  his  Saviour  vouchsafed  to  think,  in 
part  beholding  truth  as  those  Divine  eyes  beheld  it ; 
for  a  brief  space  his  mind  has  seemed  to  be  consciously 
one  with  the  mind  of  Christ.  All  this  he  has  per- 
ceived and  felt.  And  he  will  tell  us,  perchance,  what 
lias  often  been  the  sequel ;  how  he  has  risen  from  his 
desk  and  fallen  on  his  knees,  and  with  uplifted  voice 
blessed  and  adored  Almighty  God  for  His  gift  of  the 
Book  of  Life. 

The  cold-hearted  may  smile  at  such  things,  the  so- 
call&d  philosophical  may  affect  to  account  for  tliem ; 
they  may  be  put  aside  as  illusions,  or  they  may  be  ex- 
plained away  as  projections  of  self  on  the  passive  page, 
unconscious  infusion  of  one's  own  feelings  and  emotions 
in  the  calm  words  that  meet  the  outward  eye.  All 
this  has  been  urged  against  such  testimony,  and  will 
ever  be  urged  even  to  the  very  end.  But  when  the 
end  does  come  the  truth  will  appear.  That  witnessing 
of  soul  and  spirit  will,  it  may  be,  rise  up  in  silent  judg- 
ment against  many  a  one  who  now  slights  it;  that  testi- 
mony so  often  rejected  as  self-engendered  and  fanciful, 
will  be  seen  to  have  been  real  and  heaven-born,  a  reflex 
image  of  an  eternal  truth,  a  part  and  a  portion  of  the 
surest  of  the  sure  things  of  God. 

0.  But  let  us  now  pass  from  the  negative  to  tlie 
positive,  and  make  a  few  affirmative  observations  on 
the  subject  before  us.  Let  us  begin,  not  with  a  theory, 
but  with  a  delinition  and  a  statement  of  tlie  belief  tliat 
is  in  us.  If  asked  to  define  what  we  mean  by  tlie  in- 
spiration of  Scri])ture,  let  us  be  bold,  and  make  answer 
■ — that  fully  convinced  as  we  are  that  the  Scripture  is 


472  ^1^3  TO  FAITH.  [Ess AT  IX. 

the  revelation  tliroiigli  liiiman  media  of  the  infinite 
raind  of  God  to  the  Unite  mind  of  man,  and  recognizing 
as  we  do  botii  a  human  and  a  Divine  element  in  the 
written  Word,  we  verily  believe  that  the  Holy  Ghost 
was  so  breathed  into  the  mind  of  the  writer,  so  illu- 
mined his  spirit  and  pervaded  his  thoughts,  that,  while 
nothing  that  individualized  him  as  man  was  taken 
away,  everything  that -was  necessary  to  enable  him  to 
declare  Divine  Truth  in  all  its  fulness  was  bestowed 
and  superadded.  And,  as  consonant  with  this,  w^e 
further  believe  that  this  influence  of  the  Spirit,  wheth- 
er by  illumination,  suggestion,  superintendence,  or  all 
combined,  extended  itself— Jirst,  to  the  enunciation 
of  sentiments  and  doctrines,  that  so  the  will  and  coun- 
sels of  God  should  not  be  a  matter  of  doubt,  but  of 
certain  knowledge  ;  secondly^  to  statements,  recitals, 
facts,  that  so  the  truth  into  which  the  writer  was  led 
should  be  known  and  recognized;  thirdly^  to  the  choice 
of  ex]3ressions,  modes  of  speech,  and  perhaps  occasion- 
ally even  of  words  (the  individuality  of  the  writer  being 
conserved),  that  so  tlie  subject-matter  of  the  revelation 
might  be  conveyed  in  the  fittest  and  most  appropriate 
language,  and  in  the  garb  best  calculated  to  set  ofi'  its 
dignity  and  commend  its  truth. 

Let  such  be  our  definition.  If  asked  how  we  justi- 
fy it,  how  we  prove  our  assertions,  we  answer  in  two 
ways  :  first,  by  a  priori  arguments  of  great  force  and 
validity;  secondly,  by  d posteriori  arguments  of  equal 
or  even  greater  strength — arguments  which  our  pre- 
ceding remarks  on  the  negative  side  have  been  de- 
signed indirectly  to  set  forward  and  substantiate.  Into 
these  arguments  we  do  not  intend  to  enter,  but  we  may 
profitably  pause  to  specify  them.  On  the  a  ■priori  side, 
and  especially  in  reference  to  the  Old  Testament,  we 
may  specify  evidences  of  inspiration  derived  from  the 
clear  accordance  of  various  events  with  prophecies 
special  or  general  that  can  be  proved  to  have  been 
uttered  before  the  events  in  question.  Among  in- 
stances of  this  nature  the  history  and  present  state  of 
the  Jews  have  been  always  rightly  and  confidently 


Essay  IX.]  BCEIPTUPwE,  AND  ITS  INTErwPRETATION.  473 

appealed  to."'^  Aij^ain,  on  the  same  side,  but  more  in 
reference  to  the  Kew  Testament,  it  has  been  fairly 
urged  that,  if  we  admit  tlic  general  truth  and  Divine 
cluiracter  of  the  Christian  dispensation,  we  can  hardly 
believe  tliat  those  who  were  chosen  to  declare  its  prin- 
ciples and  to  make  known  its  doctrines  were  not  es- 
pecially guarded  from  error  in  the  execution  of  their 
weighty  commission,  and  were  not  divinely  guided 
both  in  the  words  they  uttered  and  the  statements  they 
committed  to  writing.  On  the  a  2>osteriori  side  we 
may  specify  the  three  great  arguments  to  which  we 
have  ah-eady  alhided  :  the  direct  declarations  of  Scrip- 
ture, the  trustworthy  character  of  Scripture  having 
been  first  demonstrated  ;f  the  unanimous  consent  of 
the  early  writers,  and  unclianging  testimony  of  the 
Catholic  Church;  and,  lastly,  tlie  inward  and  subjec- 
tive testimony  to  tlie  Divine  nature  of  the  Scripture 
yielded  by  the  soul  and  spirit  of  the  individual.  Other 
arguments  there  are,  especially  on  the  d  ijviori  side,  of 
varying  degrees  of  strength  and  solidity,  appealing  in 
different  ways  to  different  minds ;  but  the  chief  per- 
haps have  been  specified,  and  on  these  w^e  may  safely 
and  securely  base  our  preceding  assertions,  and  our 
unhesitating  and  unqualified  belief  in  the  full  inspira- 
tion of  tlie  Word  of  God. 

But  it  may  be  asked,  how  do  we  conceive  that  this 
inspiration  took  place?  AVliat  is  our  theory  of  the 
process  ?  what  do  we  conceive  to  be  the  modus  agendi 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  heart  of  man?  This  w^e 
plainly  refuse  to  answer.  We  know  not,  and  do  not 
presume  to  inquire  into  the  manner  ;  we  recognize  and 
believe  in  the  fact.  Individual  writers  may  Jiave  spec- 
ulated ;  imagery,  suitable  or  unsuitable,  may  have  been 
introduced  as  illustrative  by  a  few  thinkers  in  early 
ages ;  but  the  Catholic  Church  has  never  put  forward 
a  theory.      On  this  subject  she  has  always  maintained 

*  See  Mobcrly,  Preface  to  '  Sermons  on  the  Beatitudes,'  p.  xxxii, 
t  Thus  to  appeal  to  Scripture  to  define  its  own  character  in  reference  to 
inspiration    seems    perfectly  fair,  when   the  trustworthy  character  of  the 
volume  has  been  properly  denonstrated ;  compare  the  remarks  of  Chalmers, 
'Christian  Evidences,''  iv.  2.  2i3,  vol.  iv.,  p.  3'JO.    (Glasgow  cd.) 


474  ^11^3  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  IX 

a  solemn  reserve ;  slie  declares  to  us  that  in  the  Scri])- 
ture  the  Holy  Ghost  speaks  to  us  by  tlie  mouths  of 
men ;  she  permits  us  to  recognize  a  Divine  and  a 
human  element ;  but,  in  reference  to  the  nature,  ex- 
tent, and  special  circumstances  of  the  union,  she  warns 
ns  not  to  seek  to  be  wise  above  what  has  been  written, 
not  to  endanger  our  faith  with  speculations  and  conjec- 
tures about  that  wliich  has  not  been  revealed.  Theo- 
ries of  inspiration  are  what  scepticism  is  ever  craving 
for;  it  is  the  voice  of  hapless  unbelief  that  is  ever 
loudest  in  its  call  for  explanation  of  tlie  manner  of  the 
assumed  union  of  the  Divine  with  the  human,  or  of 
the  proportions  in  wliich  each  element  is  to  be  admitted 
and  recognized.  Such  explanations  have  not  been 
vouchsafed,  and  it  is  as  vain  and  unbecoming  to  de- 
mand them  as  it  is  to  require  a  theory  of  the  union  of 
the  Divinity  and  Humanity  in  the  person  of  Christ,  or 
an  estimate  of  the  projDortions  in  wliich  the  two  perfect 
natures  are  to  be  conceived  to  co-exist. 

JS'ot  much  more  profitable  is  the  inquiry  into  the 
exact  limits  of  inspiration,  whetlier  it  is  to  be  consid- 
ered in  all  cases  as  extending  to  words,  or  whether  it 
is  only  to  be  confined  to  sentiments  and  doctrines.  At 
first  sight  we  might  be  inclined  to  adopt  the  latter 
statement,  and  such,  to  some  extent,  would  certainly 
seem  to  have  been  the  view  of  a  writer  of  no  less  anti- 
quity and  learning  than  Justin  Martyr  ;  still  when  we 
remember,  on  the  one  hand,  that  there  are  instances  in 
Scripture  in  which  weighty  arguments  have  in  some 
degree  been  seen  to  depend  on  the  very  words  and  ex- 
pressions that  are  made  use  of  (John  x.  3-i :  Gal.  iii. 
16),  and  on  the  otlier,  that  many  important  truths  must 
have  lost  much  of  tlieir  force  and  significance  if  they 
had  not  been  expressed  exactly  with  that  verbal  preci- 
sion which  the  subject-matter  might  have  demanded, 
we  shall  be  wise  either  to  forbear  coming  to  any  deci- 
sion, or  else  to  adopt  tliat  guarded  view  Avliich  we  have 
already  indirectly  advocated,  viz.,  that  in  all  passages 
of  importance,  wheresoever  the  natural  powers  of  the 
writer  would  not  have  supplied  the  befitting  word  or 


Essay  IX.]  SCKirTUIlE,  AND  ITS  IIS'TEEmETATlON.  ^^q 

expression,  there  it  was  supplied  by  the  real  tlioiigli 
probably  iniperceivecl  influence  of  the  Spirit  of  God. 

A  question  of  far  greater  moment,  and  far  more 
]>ractical  importance,  is  that  wliich  relates  to  the  exact 
degree  of  the  inspiration,  tlic  fallibility  or  infallibility 
of  the  Sacred  Records.  Was  the  inspiration  such  as 
wholly  to  preclude  errors  and  inaccuracies,  or  was  it 
such  as  can  be  compatible  with  either  one  or  the  other? 
This  is  clearly  the  real  anxious  question  of  our  own  times, 
and  one  to  which  wc  must  briefly  return  an  answer, 
as  general  canons  of  interpretation  must  obviously  to 
some  extent  be  modified  by  the  opinions  we  form  on 
a  subject  which  so  seriously  affects  the  character  of  the 
documents  before  us.  Let  us  pause  for  a  moment  to 
consider  the  answer  that  is  now  commonly  returned  by 
those  among  us  who  claim  to  be  considered  of  ad- 
vanced thought  and  intelligence.  They  tell  us,  in 
language  of  unrestrained  confidence,  that  no  man  of 
candour  can  fail  to  acknowledge  the  existence  not  only 
of  mistakes  as  to  matters  of  minor  importance,  but  of 
such  positive  "patches  of  human  passion  and  error," 
such  "  weakness  of  memory,"  or  such  "  mingling  of  it 
w^ith  imagination,"  such  "feebleness  of  inference,  sucli 
confusion  of  illustration  with  argument,"  and  such 
variations  in  judgment  and  opinion,  that  in  the  study 
of  Scripture  we  must  continually  have  recourse  to  a 
"  rectifying  or  verifying  faculty,"  that  we  may  proper- 
ly be  enabled  to  separate  the  Divine  from  the  human, 
— what  is  true,  real,  and  unprejudiced,  from  what  is 
perverted,  mistaken,  and  false.  In  a  word,  the  Sacjed 
writers  now  stand  charged  with  errors  of  two  kinds, — 
errors  of  mind  and  judgment,  and  errors  in  matters  of 
fact,  but  on  evidence  (as  tlie  following  remarks  will 
tend  to  show^  which  cannot  be  regarded  either  as  suffi- 
cient or  conclusive. 

To  substantiate  the  first  class  of  errors  we  may  com- 
monly observe  two  modes  of  proceeding :  on  the  one 
hand,  the  more  reckless  metliod  of  citing  difficult  texts, 
assuming  that  they  contain  a  meaning  arbitrarily  fixed 
on  by  the  critic,  and  probably  not  intended  by  the  writer, 


476  ^II^S  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  IX. 

and  tlieii  censuring  liini  for  not  having  intelligibly  ex- 
pressed it;  on  the  other  liand,  the  more  guarded  but 
equally  mischievous  suggestion  that  the  logic  of  the 
Scriptures  is  rhetorical  in  character,  and  that  such  pas- 
sao-es  as  Rom.  i.  16  se(i.^  Rom.  iii.  19,  al.,  are  examples 
of  some  forms  of  error  in  reasoning,  and  such  opposi- 
tions as  "light  and  darkness,"  "good  and  evil,"  "the 
Spirit  and  the  flesh,"  "  the  sheep  and  the  goats,"  oppo- 
sitions of  ideas  only,  which  are  not  realized  in  fact  and 
experience.  With  regard  to  these  methods,  we  will  say 
briefly  that  the  first  is  nnfiiir  and  discreditable;  the 
second,  simple  assertion  that  can  either  be  disproved 
in  detail,  or  that  fairly  admits  of  counter-assertion  of 
greater  probable  truth. 

Tlie  second  class  of  alleged  errors  is,  at  first  sight, 
of  more  importance  and  plausibility.     It  professes  to 
include  oppositions  to  science,  oppositions  to  received 
history,  and  cases  of  direct  mutual  contradiction.     Of 
these  three  forms  we  may  again  briefly  say  that  in- 
stances of  the  first  kind,  far  from  increasing,  are  steadily 
decreasing  under  a  just  comparison  of  the  true  meaning 
of  the  words  of  Scripture  with  the  accredited  conclu- 
sions of  science.     Recent  discussions  of  the  subjects  of 
controversy  by  men  of  acknowledged  scientific  attain- 
ments have  tended  to  show  that  the  oppositions  of  Scrip- 
ture and  science  are  really  far  more  doubtful  than  they 
are  assumed  to  be,  and  that  though  they  still  hold  a  very 
prominent  place  on  the  pages  of  the  charlatan,  they  one 
l)y  one  disappear  from  the  treatises  of  men  of  real  science 
who  have  scholarship  sufficient  to  extract  the  real  mean- 
ing of  the  language  of  Scripture  in  the  passages  under 
consideration.  .  .  .  Much  the  same  sort  of  remark,  mu- 
tatis  inxdandls^  may  be  made  on  alleged  oppositions  to 
received  History  or  Chronology ;  many  of  the  supposed 
oppositions  held  in  former  times  to  be  inexplicable  have 
now  entirely  passed  away  from  the  scene,  and  have 
alike  ceased  to  stimulate  the  sceptic  or  to  discpiiet  the 
believer ;  others,  like  the  case  of  Cyrenius  (Luke  ii.  2), 
are  all  but  gone  ;  and  as  to  what  remain  there  is  a  grow- 
ino:  feelinix  amoni>:  unbiassed  scholars  and  historians  that 


Essay  IX.]  SCEirTURE,  AND  ITS  INTEEPEETATION.  477 

if  we  coiiKl  but  obtain  tbe  knov/]ccIge  of  a  few  more 
facts  reUitive  to  tbe  various  points  at  issue,  tbe  opposi- 
tions of  Scripture  and  History  would  wbolly  cease  to 
exist.  ...  In  regard  of  mutual  contradictions,  it  miglit 
be  tliougbt  a  better  case  bas  been  made  out.     Writers 
from  wlioni  we  migbt  bave  looked  for  more  guarded 
comment  bave  done  mucb  to  exaggerate  tbe  so-called 
discrepancies  of  tbe  Scripture  narrative,  and  bave  some- 
wbat  too  empbatically  denounced  modes  of  explanation 
tbat,  botli  from  tbeir  simplicity  and,  not  unfrequently, 
tbeir  antiquity,  bave  very  great  claims  on  cm*  consid- 
eration.    Sceptics  bave  not  been  slow  to  take  advantage 
of  tbis  ill-advised  course.     Wlien,  bowever,  all  tbese  so- 
called  contradictions  are  mustered  up,  tbey  are  but  a 
motley  and  an  enfeebled  bost.     TV^e  survey  tbem,  and 
we  observe  some  as  old  as  tbe  days  of  Celsus,  and  as 
decrepit  as  tbey  are  old ;  otbers  vainly  biding  all  but 
mortal  wounds  received  in  conflicts  of  tbe  past,  and  now 
only  craving  a  coup  de  grace  from  some  combatant  of 
our  own  times ;  some  of  a  later  date,  and  a  more  aspiring 
air,  recruited  from  Deistical  controversies  of  a  century 
or  two  back,  but  all  marked  witb  uncomely  scars,  and 
armed  witb  notbing  better  tban  broken   or  corroded 
weapons.     Tbere  tbey  stand  ;  tbe  discrepancy  between 
two  Evangelists  about  tbe  original  dwelling-place  of 
Mary  and  Josepb,  explained  and  well  explained  four- 
teen bundred  years  ago ;  tbe  two  genealogies,  fairly  dis- 
cussed in  ancient  times,  and  in  our  own  explained  in  a 
manner  tbat  approacbes  to  positive  demonstration  ;  tbe 
blaspbemy  of  tbe  tico  tbieves,  disposed  of  very  reason- 
ably by  Cbrysostom,  and  since  bis  time  on  tbe  same  or 
a  similar  principle  by  every  unprejudiced  commentator ; 
tbe  narrative  of  tbe  woman  wlio  anointed  our  Lord's 
feet,  first  prepared  for  tbe  occasion  by  tbe  assumption 
tbat  tbe  narratives  in  all  tbe  four  Gospels  relate  to  tbe 
same  woman, — an  assumption  regarded  even  by  ]\reyer, 
and  ap]xirently  De  Wette,  as  plainly  contrary  to  tbe 
fact.     And  so  on.     AVben  we  survey  sucb  a  company, 
and  are  told  tluit^  at  any  rate,  we  sbould  respect  tlieir 
numbers,  tbeir  aggregate  autbority,  tbeir  cumulative 


4Y8  -A-IDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  IX. 

weight,  ail  uneasy  feeling  arises  in  the  mind  that  those 
Avho  parade  them  must  really  be  aware  that  there  is 
something  amiss  with  each  case,  that,  however  numer- 
ically strong  they  may  be,  it  is  disagreeably  true  that 
as  individual  instances  they  are  disabled  or  weak.  If 
so,  is  there  not  a  great  responsibility  resting  on  those 
who  bring  forward  catalogues  of  such  instances,  and  yet 
do  not  apprise  the  simple  and  the  inexperienced  that 
each  supposed  difficulty  has  most  certainly  been  met 
over  and  over  again,  and  with  very  reasonable  success ; 
that  this  array,  so  to  be  respected  for  its  numbers,  is 
really  strong  in  nothing  else, — a  mere  rabble  of  half- 
armed  or  disarmed  men  ? 

Eut  finally,  it  may  be  said,  are  we  prepared  to  assert 
that  no  inaccurac}^,  even  in  what  all  might  agree  in  re- 
garding as  a  wholly  unimportant  matter  of  fact, — a  date, 
for  instance,  or  a  name,  or  a  popular  statement  of  an 
indifferent  matter, — either  has  been,  or  can  ever  be, 
found  in  the  whole  compass  of  Scripture  ?  To  that 
question,  in  its  categorical  form,  we  should  perhaps  be 
wise  in  refusing  positively  to  return  any  answer.  "We 
have  no  theory  of  inspiration,  we  only  state  what  we 
find  to  be  a  matter  of  fact,  we  only  put  forward  what 
those  facts  and  the  testimony  of  the  Church  alike  war- 
rant us  in  defining  as  the  true  and  Catholic  doctrine. 
Wq  have  no  means  of  settling  definitely  whether  [ij^osse 
jyeccare  in  minor  matters  may,  or  may  not,  be  compat- 
ible with  a  Divine  revelation  communicated  through 
human  media ;  but  certainly  till  inaccuracies,  fairly  and 
incontestably  proved  to  be  so,  are  brought  home  to  the 
Scripture,  we  seem  logically  justified  in  believing  that 
as  it  is  with  nine-tenths  of  the  alleged  contradictions  in 
Scri])ture,  so  is  it  with  the  allcged'inaccuracy.  Either 
the  so-called  inaccuracy  is  due  to  our  ignorance  of  some 
simple  lact,  which,  if  known,  would  explain  all ;  or  it 
is  really  only  an  illustration  of  one  of  those  very  condi- 
tions and  characteristics  of  human  testimony,  however 
lionest  and  truthful,  without  which  it  would  cease  to  be 
human  testimony  at  all.  If  ])ositively  forced  to  state 
our  oi)inion,  we  will  express  what  we  believe  to  be  llie 


Essay  IX.]  SCEIPTUnE,  AND   ITS  INTERPIIETATION.  4^9 

true  doctrine  of  inspiration  in  tliis  particular  by  an  ex- 
ample and  a  simile.  As  in  the  case  of  tlie  Incarnate 
Word  ^ve  fully  recognize  in  the  Lord's  humanity  all 
essentially  human  limitations  and  weaknesses,  the  hun- 
ger, the  thirst",  and  the  weariness  on  the  side  of  the 
body,  and  the  gradual  development  on  the  side  of  the 
huinan  mind  (Luke  ii.  40), — in  a  word,  all  that  belongs 
to  the  essential  and  original  characteristics  of  the  pure 
form  of  the  nature  He  vouchsafed  to  assume,  but  plainly 
deny  the  existence  therein  of  the  faintest  trace  of  sin,  or 
of  moral  or  mental  imperfection, — even  so  in  the  case 
of  the  written  Word,  viewed  on  its  purely  human  side, 
and  in  its  reference  to  matters  lyreviously  admitted  to 
have  no  hearing  on  Divine  truths  we  may  admit  therein 
tlie  existence  of  such  incompleteness,  such  limitations, 
and  such  imperfections  as  belong  even  to  the  highest 
forms  of  purely  truthful  huinan  testimony,  but  consist- 
ently deny  the  existence  of  mistaken  views,  perversion, 
misrepresentation,  and  any  form  whatever  of  consciously 
committed  error  or  inaccuracy. 

10.  We  have  thus  at  length  touched  upon  all  tlie 
main  points  in  which  the  doctrine  of  the  inspiration  of 
Scripture  is  in  any  degree  likely  to  come  in  contact 
with  rules  and  principles  of  interpretation.  Less  than 
this  could  not  have  been  said.  Less  it  was  not  logically 
consistent  to  say.  It  may,  indeed,  seem  plausible  to 
urge  that  we  have  no  right  to  express  any  prior  opinion 
on  such  subject;  that  we  have  only  to  apply  to  Scrip- 
ture the  ordinary  rules  of  interpretation  which  we  ob- 
serve in  the  case  of  other  books,  and  tliat  we  ought  to 
leave  the  question  of  inspiration  to  be  settled  by  the  re- 
sults we  arrive  at.  Is  it  not,  however,  abundantly  clear 
that  if  there  be  even  a  low  presumption,  arising  from 
external  or  internal  evidence,  for  supposing  that  the 
Scripture  has  cliaractcristics  which  render  it  very  un- 
like any  other  book,  then  it  is  only  riglit  and  reasonable 
to  examine  tliat  evidence  before  we  apply  rules  of  inter- 
pretation which,  perhaps,  may  be  found  in  tlie  sequel 
to  be  inadmissible  or  inapplicable?  Surel}^,  on  the 
very  fiice  of  tlie  matter  it  seems  somewhat  strange  to 


480  ^II^S  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  IX, 

be  told  to  interpret  the  Scripture  like  any  other  book, 
Avhile  in  the  same  breath  it  is  avowed  that  there  are 
many  respects  in  which  Scripture  is  unlike  any  other 
book.  It  is  really  very  much  the  same  as  being  told  to 
ascertain  with  a  two-foot  rule  the  precise  linear  dimen- 
sions of  a  room  of  which  it  is  known  or  admitted  that 
the  sides  are  not  always  straight,  but  variously  curved 
and  embayed.  The  application  of  our  two-foot  rule 
would  doubtless  put  very  clearly  before  us,  if  we  had 
ever  doubted  it,  not  only  the  fact  that  bays  and  curva- 
tures really  did  exist,  but  also  that  the  instrument  in 
our  hands  Avas  a  singularly  unfit  one  for  measuring 
what  it  was  plain  required  something  less  rigid  and  im- 
practicable. The  duty  of  the  two-foot  rule  ^vould  really 
then  be  over,  unless  we  chose  to  reserve  it  for  those  parts 
where  the  walls  somewhat  more  nearly  conformed  to  the 
straight  line.  If,  howevei-,  we  desired  properly  to  com- 
plete our  task,  we  should  have  to  go  home  for  our  meas- 
in-ing-tape.  The  nature  and  application,  first  of  the 
two-ibot  rule  and  then  of  the  nieasuring-tape,  may  now 
very  fitly  engage  our  attention,  and  occupy  the  remain- 
ing portion  of  the  present  essay. 


11.  IlitJierto  we  have  been  engaged  in  two  very 
important  departments  of  the  subject  before  ns.  In  the 
first  part  of  our  paper  we  have  done  our  best  to  clear 
away  some  of  the  errors  and  misrepresentations  con- 
nected with  the  great  alleged  variety  of  Scripture  inter- 
]-)retations.  In  the  second  portion  we  have  endeavoured 
to  arrive  at  a  just  estimate  of  the  nature  and  character- 
istics of  Scripture,  which  must  be  recognized  by  the 
careful  and  reverent  interpreter.  We  have  seen  that 
variety  is  to  be  expected,  and  difliculties  to  be  prepared 
for  in  the  interpretation  of  Scripture,  and  we  have  fur- 
ther seen  that  this  variety  and  these  difiiculties  are  to 
be  ascribed,  first,  to  the  real  difierence  between  Scrip- 
ture and  every  other  book ;  secondly,  to  the  existence 
in  it  of  deeper  meanings,  as  shown  in  its  prophetic, 


Essay  IX.]  SClUPTUliE,  AND  ITS  INTEEPEETATION.  431 

typical,  or  even  historical  portions ;  and  thirdly,  to  the 
fact  of  its  being  a  volume  written  under  the  influence 
of  an  inspiration  which  we  liave  endeavoured  briellj  to 
explain  and  substantiate.  These  two  portions  of  our 
subject  being  hnished,  we  now  proceed  to  the  third 
portion, — a  discussion  of  what  appears  generally  to  be 
the  true  and  right  method  of  interpreting  a  volume 
characterized  as  we  have  found  the  Scripture  to  be ; 
and  a  statement  of  a  few  principles,  rules,  and  observa- 
tions, which  may  be  of  some  service  to  younger  stu- 
dents, and  which  experience  has  certainly  shown  to  be 
sound  and  trustworthy. 

This  forms  the  main  department  of  our  subject,  and 
admits  of  several  subdivisions.  Perhaps  our  simplest 
course  will  be  to  devote  the  present  section  to  a  discus- 
sion of  general  rules  of  interpretation — the  really  im- 
portant portion  of  the  subject;  and  to  append  in  con- 
cluding sections  a  few  comments,  on  the  one  hand,  upon 
the  application  of  Scripture,  and,  on  the  other,  upon 
the  grammar  and  laws  of  the  letter.  In  so  doing  we 
confine  ourselves  principally  to  the  New  Testament, 
but  w^e  shall  perhaps  be  found  not  unfrequently  to  allude 
to  canons  and  principles  that  will  apply  to  all  parts  of 
the  Sacred  Yolume,  and  ma_y  benefit  the  student  of  the 
Old  as  well  as  of  the  New  Testament.  Ere,  however, 
we  enter  into  these  discussions,  let  one  point  be  clearly 
understood, — that  there  is  a  requisite,  a  necessary  prep- 
aration for  the  study  of  the  Scripture,  which  we  assunie 
throughout,  a  preparation  of  more  value  than  a  knowl- 
edge of  all  the  rules  and  canons  of  the  wisest  interpret- 
ers of  the  world  :  that  requisite  and  preparation  is 
preliminary  prayer.  It  is  not  necessary  to  enlarge  upon 
a  subject  wdiich  speaks  for  itself;  it  is  not  necessary  to 
commend  what  the  very  instincts  of  the  soul  tell  us  is 
a  preparation  simply  and  plainly  indispensable.  AVe 
allude  to  it  as  by  its  very  mention  serving  to  hallow 
our  coming  remarks,  and  as  useful  in  reminding  us,  in 
the  pride  and  glory  of  our  intellectual  efforts,  that  it  is 
more  than  prol)a])le  tliat  the  very  sim])lest  reader  that 
takes  his  translated  l^ible  on  his  knees,  and  reads  with 
21 


482  ^II^S  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  IX, 

prayer  tliat  lie  may  understand,  will  attain  a  truer  and 
more  inward  knowledge  of  the  words  than  will  ever  be 
vouchsafed  to  him  who,  with  all  the  appliances  of  phi- 
lology and  criticism,  reads  the  original  but  forgets  to 
mark  its  lioly  character,  and  to  pray  that  he  may  not 
only  read,  but  may  also  learn  and  understand.  Would 
to  God  that  this  rule  were  of  more  universal  adoption, 
and  had  been  of  late  more  regularly  observed  ;  for  then 
we  may  be  well  assured  that  none  of  the  scornfulness 
and  rash  modes  of  interpretation  against  which  we  have 
now  to  protest  would  ever  have  been  put  forth,  and 
have  tried,  as  they  now  are  trying,  both  the  faith  and 
the  patience  of  humbler  students  of  the  Word. 

One  further  preliminary  and  requisite  in  the  case 
of  the  interpreter  of  Scripture  we  must  here  allude  to, 
both  on  account  of  its  own  intrinsic  importance,  and 
still  more  in  consequence  of  the  startling  way  in  which 
it  has  been  recently  neglected.  That  requisite  is  can- 
dour, o^ext,  in  the  work  of  interpretation,  to  a  prayer- 
ful and  humble  stands  a  candid  and  honest  spirit, — a 
brave  and  faithful  spirit  that,  knowing  and  believing 
that  God  is  a  God  of  Truth,  hesitates  not  to  state  with 
all  clearness  and  simplicity  the  results  to  which  humble- 
minded  investigation  seems  in  each  case  to  lead, — that 
scorns  to  palter  and  explain  away,  to  gloss  or  to  ideal- 
ize,— that  shrinks  not  from  frankly  specifying  all  the 
details  of  the  apparent  discrepancy,  be  it  with  other 
portions  of  Scripture,  with  science,  or  with  history,  be- 
lieving thus  that  the  true  reconciliation  will  hereafter 
be  more  readil}^  discovered, — in  a  word,  that  has  faith 
clearly  to  tell  the  dream,  and  patience  to  wait  for  the 
interpretation  thereof.  AYe  cannot  but  observe  that 
even  sounder' iutcrpreters  both  of  our  own  and  other 
times  liave  often  sadly  failed  in  this  particular.  AVe 
own  with  sorrow  that  there  have  ever  been  over-eager 
Uzzalis  among  us  that  have  sought  to  upbear  the  en- 
dangered truth  with  aids  that  have  brought  on  them- 
selves their  own  chastisement.  AYe  admit,  alas  !  that 
good  and  earnest  men  have  sometimes  been  driven  by 
anxieties  and  antagonisms  into  patently  inadmissible 


Essay  IX.]  SCRIPTURE,  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATION.  433 

solutions;  we  know  that  they  have  nrged  untenable 
accommodations,  and  we  are  even  willing  to  believe,  as 
our  opponents  tell  us,  tliat  they  have  dwelt  on  evidence 
that  was  in  their  favour,  and  have  been  very  insulH- 
cicntly  sensitive  to  that  which  was  against  them.  This 
we  know  and  admit,  but  at  the  same  time  we  fail  not 
to  observe  that,  as  our  coming  examples  will  show,  they 
wlio  have  brought  this  charge  against  others  lie  griev- 
ously open  to  it  themselves,  and  that  it  is  indeed  time 
that  both  parties  should  desist  from  courses  wdiich  do 
such  deep  dishonour  to  the  Word  of  God,  and  imply 
such  an  utter  want  both  of  faith  and  integrity. 

Let  the  interpreter  then  resolve,  with  God's  assist- 
ing grace,  to  be  candid  and  truthful.  Let  him  fear  not 
to  state  honestly  the  results  of  his  own  honest  investi- 
gations ;  let  him  be  simple,  reverent,  and  plain-spoken, 
and,  above  all,  let  him  pray  against  that  sectarian  bias 
which,  by  importing  its  own  foregone  conclusions  into 
the  word  of  Scripture,  and  by  refusing  to  see  or  to  ac- 
knowledge what  makes  against  its  own  prejudices,  lias 
proved  the  greatest  known  hindrance  to  all  fair  inter- 
pretation, and  has  tended,  more  than  anything  else  in 
the  world,  to  check  the  free  course  of  Divine  Truth. 
To  illustrate  our  meaning  by  examples.  Let  the  inter- 
preter in  the  first  place  be  seduced  by  no  timidity  or 
prejudices  from  ascertaining  the  true  text.  Let  liim 
not  fall  back  upon  the  too  often  repeated  statement 
that,  as  readings  affect  no  great  points  of  doctrine,  the 
subject  may  be  left  in  abeyance.  It  is  indeed  most 
true,  that  different  readings  of  such  a  character  as 
1  Tim.  iii.  IG,  or  interpolations  such  as  1  John  v.  7, 
are  few  and  exceptional.  It  is  indeed  a  cause  for  de- 
vout thankfuhiess,  if  not  even  for  a  recognition  of  a 
special  providence,  that  out  of  the  vast  number  of 
various  readings  so  few  affect  vital  questions ;  still  it  is 
indisputably  a  fact  that  but  few  pages  of  the  Xew  Tes- 
tament can  be  turned  over  without  our  finding  points 
of  the  greatest  interest  affected  by  very  trivial  varia- 
tions of  reading.  On  tlie  ]iresence  or  absence  of  an 
article  in  Jolui  v.  1  the  whole  chronology  of  our  Lord's 


484  'A.IDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  IX. 

ministerial  life  may  be  said  almost  entirely  to  depend. 
A  very  slight  alteration  in  Mark  vii.  31  opens  out  a  fact 
of  deep  historical  interest,  and  is  of  very  great  signifi- 
cance in  reference   alike  to   commands   subsequently 
given  to  the  Apostles  to  preach  the  Gospel,  and  to 
former  prohibitions  (Matt.  x.  5).     The  absence  of  two 
words  in  Eph.  i.  1  (now  rendered  somewhat  more  prob- 
able by  the  testimony  of  the  Codex  Sinaiticus)  gives  a 
fresh  aspect  to  an  important  Epistle,  disposes  at  once 
of  several  p7'wid  facie  difficulties,  and  further  must  be 
taken  greatly  into  account  in  the  adjustment  of  some 
subordinate  but  interesting  questions  with  which  the 
Epistle  has  been  thought  to  stand  in  connexion  (Col. 
iv.  16).     The  presence  or  absence  of  a  few  words  in 
Matt,  xxviii.  9  affects  considerably  our  ability  to  re- 
move one  of  the  many  seeming  discrepancies  in  the 
narratives  of  the  first  hours  of  the  morn  of  the  Resur- 
rection.    We  could  multiply  such  examples,  but  per- 
haps enough  has  been  said.     There  are  indeed  several 
grounds  for  thinking  that  there  is  an  improved  feeling 
on  the  whole  subject;  and  there  seem  some  reasons  for 
hoping  that  though  no  authoritative  revision  is  likely 
to  take  place,  nor,  at  present  perhaps,  even  to  be  de- 
sired, 3^et  that  the  time  is  coming  when  there  will  be 
a  considerable  agreement  on  many  of  the  results  of 
modern  criticism,  and  when  it  will  be  as  startling  to 
hear  a  sermon  deliberately  preached  on  Acts  viii.  37, 
as  it  would  be  now  on  the  Heavenly  Witnesses.    There 
are,  alas !    still  many  signs  of  nneasiness  and  obstruc- 
tion; but  we  do  entreat  and  conjure  those  who  would 
onl}^  too  gladly  put  the  whole  question  in  abeyance  to 
pause,  seriously  to  pause,  before  they  do  such  dishonour 
to  the  words  of  inspiration,  and  leave  clinging  to  our 
Church  both  tlie  reproaches  which  are  now  so  pitilessly 
cast  upon  iis  all  by  the  gainsayer,  and  that  still  deeper 
reproach  of  our  own  hearts, — that,  believing  the  Bible 
to  be  a  special,  direct,  and  inspired  revelation  from 
God,  we  have  yet  not  used  the  means  now  at  hand  of 
ascertaining  the  exact  language  in  which  that  revela- 
tion is  vouchsafed.    Mournful  indeed  will  be  the  retro- 


Essay  IX.]  eCKIPTURE,  AND  ITS  INTEIirRETATION.  435 

spect,  arid  gloomy  indeed  the  future,  if  unbecoming 
anxiety  or  a  timid  conservatism  is  to  tempt  honest 
hearts  to  show  sadly  lacking  measures  of  faith,  and  to 
deal  deceitfully  with  the  Oracles  of  God. 

If  this  be  the  first  form  in  which  candour  is  to  be 
shown,  let  the  second  be  the  fearless  statement  of  the 
apparent  results  of  investigation,  whether  on  this  side 
or  on  that,  in  the  case  of  collective  or  individual  pas- 
sages. A  few  remarks  will  illustrate  our  meaning,  and 
will  incidentall}^  substantiate  what  we  liave  stated 
above,  viz.,  that  those  who  have  recently  most  inveighed 
against  want  of  candour  in  others  are  grievously  lack- 
ing in  it  themselves."  What,  for  instance,  can  be  more 
uncandid  than  to  iniply  that  justification  by  faith  may 
mean  ''  peace  of  mind  or  sense  of  Divine  approval," 
when  against  it  we  have  not  only  the  current  of  two 
important  Epistles,  but  observe  that  in  the  very  passage 
from  which  such  a  perverted  view  might  have  been 
derived  (Eom.  v.  1)  the  mention  of  the  Saviour  as  the 
medium  shows  in  what  sense  the  Apostle  meant  his 
words  to  be  miderstood,  and  how  consistently  he  could 
state  eight  verses  afterwards  that  we  were  justified  in 
and  by  the  blood  of  Christ  (eV  r&i  aLfian),  and  were  rec- 
onciled by  His  death  (ver.  10)?  How  really  mipar- 
donableto  hint  that  resurrection  may  mean  "a  spiritual 
quickening,"  and  to  stamp  the  exact  meaning  of  the 
hint  by  the  subsequent  assertion,  that  Heaven  is  not  a 
place  so  much  as  fulfilment  of  the  love  of  God,  when 
this  is  a  perversion  of  the  word  against  which  an  Apos- 
tle has  left  a  special  and  determinate  protest!  llow 
opposed  to  all  principles  of  honest  explanation  to  imply 
that  propitiation  is  the  recovery  of  a  peace  with  God 
which  sin  has  interrupted,  and  to  follow  it  up  by  tlie 
supplementary  assertion  that  negation  of  "  rite  of  blood" 
belongs  essentially  to  a  s])iritual  God,  when  we  have 
the  drift  of  part  of  a  long  Epistle  opjiosed  to  such  a 
view,  and  when  we  further  observe  that  a  mention  of 
the  material  element  "blood"  in  connexion  with  our 

*  For  the  culpable  statements  and  iusinuatious  rcprehcudcd  iu  the  text, 
BCC  *  Essays  and  Reviews,'  p.  bO  eo]. 


486  ^I^S  "^0  FAITH.  [EssArIX 

redemption  and  our  Lord's  atonement  (Epli.  i.  7,  ii.  13 ; 
1  Pet.  i.  2,  19,  al.)  is  in  the  New  Testament  so  per- 
petual and  pervasive  that  he  who  denies  it  must  be 
prepared  to  deny  the  evidence  of  liis  own  senses  !  Such 
melancholy  perversions  of  Scripture  may  perhaps  be 
extreme  cases,  but  they  may  suitably  serve  as  exam- 
ples of  the  lengths  to  which  prejudice  and  want  of 
candour  may  at  last  proceed,  and  may  incidentally 
warn  us  that  the  dread  term  "judicial  blindness"  ex- 
presses no  mere  fancy  of  theologians,  but  a  frightful 
and  a  substantive  truth. 

With  such  painful  examples  before  us,  surely  the 
duty  of  resolving  at  all  costs  to  be  candid,  to  estimate 
fairly  the  details,  and  state  honestly  the  results  of  in- 
vestigations, be  the  apparent  tenor  of  those  results 
whatever  it  may,  seems  to  press  itself  upon  lis  with 
redoubled  force.  Never  was  there  a  time  when  can- 
dour on  all  sides  seemed  more  necessary,  never  a  jjeriod 
in  the  history  of  our  Church  when  a  frank  recognition 
of  points  of  difficulty  and  difference  seemeddikely  to  be 
productive  of  more  real  good.  Above  all  things,  let 
us  not  yield  to  the  temptation  of  holding  back  what  we 
believe  to  be  the  true  aspect  of  a  passage  because  it 
may  be  thought  to  lend  a  passing  countenance  to  the 
tenets  of  opponents.  Let  us  be  fair  to  all  sides.  "While 
then,  for  example,  we  justly  protest  against  the  use  of 
1  Cor.  iii.  13  to  establish  Purgatory,  because,  on  the 
one  hand,  perspicuity,  and,  on  the  other,  details  {iv 
TTupt),  as  illustrated  by  parallel  passages  (2  Thess.  i.  8  ; 
Dan.  vii.  9,  10 ;  Mai.  iv.  1),  aUke  seem  to  point  to 
rj  r)fi6pa  (])reviously  agreed  upon  by  both  sides  to 
be  "  dies  Domini,"  Yulg.)  being  the  nominative  to 
aiTOKakvTTTeTaL  ;  so,  in  the  case  of  2  Tim.  i.  16  (comp. 
ch.  iv.  19)  we  do  not  shrink  from  giving  the  opinion 
tliat  the  terms  of  the  verse  seem  to  imply  that  Onesi- 
phorus  was  dead  at  the  time  that  the  Epistle  was  writ- 
ten, though  we  may  know  the  use  that  will  be  made  of 
the  statement.  AVhile,  again,  we  deny  the  fairness  of 
using  Gal.  v.  0  to  support  the  theory  oi  2i  fides  formata^ 
we  are  not  deterred  by  the  known  use  of  the  text  in 


Essay  IX.]  SCEIPTUEE,  AND  ITS  INTERPEETATION.  43^ 

support  of  Tradition  from  stating  the  opinion  that,  in 
the  case  of  2  Thess.  ii.  15,  tlie  use  of  ehihdxOr)re  and  tlie 
general  tenor  of  the  context  justify  the  reference  of 
Trapahocrei^  to  matters,  not  only  of  discipline,  but  also 
of  doctrine.  ...  To  pass  to  other  opponents  :  we  fear 
not,  on  tlie  one  side,  to  give  np  several  of  the  examples 
said  to  fall  under  Granville  Sharp's  rule,  as,  for  exam- 
ple, Eph.  V.  5,  2  Thess.  i.  12,  deeming  the  application 
of  the  rule  in  words  like  Qeo^  and  Kvpto<;  to  be,  gram- 
matically considered,  precarious  ;  on  the  other  side,  we 
feel  the  contextual  allusions  to  be  so  distinct  in  Tit.  ii. 
13,  that  Ave  have  no  hesitation  in  stating  our  firm  belief 
that  the  title  '*  Great  God  "  is  there  applied  to  the  Lord 
Jesus.  Again,  we  are  not  afraid  to  own  that  virep, 
though  apparently  so  used  in  Philem.  13,  is  not  safely 
to  be  pressed  in  every  doctrinal  passage  similar  to  Gal. 
iii.  13,  or  1  Pet.  iii.  IS,  as  serving  to  establish  the  doc- 
trine of  our  Lord's  vicarious  suflerings  :  we  claim  how 
ever,  in  return,  the  same  candour  at  the  hands  of  our 
opponents  in  the  interpretation  of  such  passages  as  1 
Tim.  ii.  6  {dvTiXvrpov),  1  Pet.  ii.  21,  which,  if  words 
mean  anything,  do  assuredly  imply  that  doctrine  in 
the  most  plain  and  unqualified  way.  AVe  deny  not  all 
the  fair  inferences  that  flow  from  such  passages  as — 
"  every  soul  shall  bear  its  own  iniquity," — but  we  do 
justly  complain,  with  such  words  before  us  as  reKva 
6pyri<;  (Eph.  ii.  2 ;  actually  rendered  by  one  living  writ- 
er "children  oiimpulse^^ '%  and  with  a  variety  of  simi- 
lar allusions  positively  pervading  the  ]N'ew  Testament, 
that  we  should  be  told  that  the  Christian  scheme  of 
redemption  "  has  been  staked  "  on  two  so-called  figura- 
tive expressions  of  St.  Paul,  as  found  in  Eom.  v.  12 
and  1  Cor.  xv.  22.  We  draw  back  with  positive  repug- 
nance from  such  a  gloss  as  that  of  Beza  ("  quosvis 
liomincs")  on  the  holy  inclusiveness  of  the  iravra^;  in  1 
Tim.  ii.  5,  yet  again  we  do  not  shrink  from  a  single 
inference  that  legitimately  comes  from  the  e^eXe^aro 
m  such  passages  as  Eph.  i.  4,  nor  do  we  deny  that  few 
topics  have  been  more  overlooked,  and  few  which  throw 

*  See  Maunco,  '  Unity  of  the  New  Testament,'  p.  538. 


488  ^^^^  '^^  FAITH.  [EssATlX 

a  greater  liglit  on  the  final  adjustment  of  all  things, 
than  the  circumstances,  characteristics,  and  prerogatives 
of  the  elect.  Few  perversions,  again,  have  been  more 
decided  than  the  cliange  of  nominative  in  Heb.  x.  38, 
yet  this  ought  all  the  more  to  urge  us,  on  the  other 
side,  to  set  an  example  of  candour  in  the  interpretation 
of  the  eVtreXeo-et  in  PhiL  i.  6,  and  not  to  tamper  with 
the  tense  of  jBelBaiooaet,  or  the  meaning  of  eo)?  reXof?  in 
1  Cor.  i.  8.  !So  again,  though  we  may  nse  Calvin's 
own  words,  and  regard  it  in  truth  as  a  horrihile  decretuvi 
that  would  involve  in  a  predetermined  perdition  the 
darkened  nations  of  a  pagan  world,  we  yet  refuse  to 
interpret  against  the  'usus  scribencli  of  an  inspired 
author,  and  in  a  passage  like  Eom.  i.  2i  we  dare  not 
regard  a  grammatical  formula  which  appears  in  almost 
all  cases  to  mark  imiyose^  as  in  this  case  only  indica- 
tive of  issue  and  result.  Lastly,  to  gather  up  a  hand- 
ful of  passages  with  which  party  bias  has  dealt  deceit- 
fully,— if  we  regard  it  as  unJDrincii^led  that  such  a  word 
as  iXao-Ti'jpLov  should  be  explained  away  in  Eom.  iii. 
25,  perverse  that  such  a  plain  and  positive  concrete 
term  as  \ovTpov  should  be  volatilised  in  Eph.  v.  26,  Tit. 
iii.  5,  or  such  a  passage  as  John  iii.  5  toned  down, 
monstrous  that  such  a  clear  prohibition  as  that  in  Col. 
ii.  18  should  be  evaded  by  an  unauthorized  limitation 
of  one  word  {Oprja-Keia),  or  a  non-natural  explanation  of 
another  {ayyeXcov), — if,  again,  we  recoil  from  the  ex- 
pressed or  implied  denials  of  tlie  typical  relations  of 
circumcision  and  baptism,  when  we  can  put  our  fingers 
on  such  verses  as  Col.  ii.  11,  and  the  explanatory  verse 
which  follows  it, — if  we  start  to  find  the  use  of  a  strong 
word  {6pKil^w\  where  we  should  not  have  expected  it 
(1  Thess.  V.  27),  suggest  the  assumption  that  an  Apostle 
at  times  was  not  master  of,  or  did  not  know  the  A\alue 
of,  the  words  which  he  was  using, — if,  with  reason,  we 
shrink  from  and  even  denounce  all  such  instances  of 
prejudice  and  want  of  candour  in  our  opponents;  yet 
let  lis  also  remember  that  on  the  side  of  over-anxions 
orthodoxy  every  instance  could  find  its  exact  parallel, 
and  that  we  may  be  well  reminded  ourselves  to  take 


Essay  IX.}         SCRIPTURE,  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATION.  439 

good  heed  that  we  be  not  ensnared  by  perverted  ])rinci- 
plcs  of  interpretation  that  liave  tlius  long  retained  such 
ii  baneful  ascendency.  On  reviewing  sucli  a  list,  does 
not  the  conviction  arise  that  the  "  speaking  the  truth 
in  love  "  of  the  Apostle  is  a  principle  that  needs  anew 
to  be  commended  to  every  interpreter  of  Scripture  ? 
and  does  not  also  the  melancholy  reflection  rise  with  it 
that  it  is,  perhaps,  almost  exclusively  owing  to  the 
long  neglect  of  this  principle  that  we  must  ascribe  the 
present  state  of  parties,  and  their  present  attitudes  Of 
increasing  hostility  and  antagonism? 

12.  But  to  pass  from  these  preliminary  comments 
to  the  main  cpestion  with  which  we  are  now  more  es- 
pecially concerned,  let  us  proceed  to  consider  what, 
judging  from  the  experiences  of  the  past  and  the  pres- 
ent, seems  to  bo  the  most  befitting  and  trustworthy 
method  of  interpreting  a  Volume  bearing  such  striking 
and  unique  characteristics  as  we  find  in  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures. The  answer,  it  can  hardly  be  doubted,  after 
what  has  been  said  in  the  earlier  portion  of  this  essay, 
must  be — "  the  literal  and  historical  method,''  that 
method  which  not  only  concerns  itself  with  the  simple 
and  grammatical  meaning  of  the  words,  but  also  with 
that  meaning  viewed  under  what  may  be  termed,  for 
want  of  a  better  word,  its  historical  relations,  viz.,  as 
illustrated  by  facts,  modified  by  the  context,  substan- 
tiated by  the  tenor  of  the  Holy  Book,  and  receiving 
elucidation  from  minor  specialities  and  details.  On 
the  general  propriety  of  such  a  method  there  will  not 
be,  perhaps,  any  very  great  difierences  of  opinion.  On 
the  particuhir  rules  for  carrying  out  the  method  we 
must  naturally  expect  considerable  debate  and  disagree- 
ment. For  example,  the  seemingly  comprehensive 
and  plausible  rule  which  has  been  lately  so  much 
pressed  upon  our  attention — ''  Interpret  Scri]-)ture  like 
any  other  book  " — has  already  been  seen  to  be  at  best 
only  of  limited  application,  and  to  involve  assumptions 
— e.g.  the  resemblance  of  Scrij^ture  to  other  books  in 
respect  of  its  having  one  and  only  one  meaning — which 
we  have  ai»])arently  had  the  fullest  reasons  for  refusing 
21* 


490  -^II^S  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  IX, 

to  concede.  Many  jnst  objections  may  also  be  urged 
against  other  rules  that  have  been  proposed,  especially 
against  those  which,  tacitly  assuming  an  exaggerated 
amount  of  iigarative  language  in  the  Scriptures,  tend 
to  exempt  many  portions  of  the  inspired  Volume  from 
being  regarded  to  mean  what  they  actually  say,  and 
many  declarations  from  having  assigned  to  them  their 
real  force  and  significance.  It  is  scarcely  too  much 
to  say,  that  most  of  these  modern  rules  have  involved 
sbme  sinister  tendency,  and  have  been  based  on  very 
thinly  covered  assumptions  of  an  amount  of  error  in 
the  Scriptures  that  is  totally  undemonstrable.  In  this 
real  difficulty  of  accepting  what  has  hitherto  been  ad- 
vanced, we  Yvdll  ourselves  venture  to  propose  for  con- 
sideration a  few  short  canons  of  a  very  simple  nature, 
which,  perhaps,  may  be  found  practically  useful  in 
carrying  out  the  method  of  interpretation  above  alluded 
to.  Not  to  be  unnecessarily  minute,  w^e  may  first 
specify,  with  illustrations,  four  rules  or  principles,  two 
of  which  relate  rather  more  to  the  letter,  two  rather 
more  to  the  spirit  and  applications  of  it.  Whether  we 
need  any  farther  rule  w^ill  be  best  seen  as  we  proceed. 
The  first  rule  is  an  extremely  obvious  one,  yet  a 
rule  which,  if  it  had  been  always  follow^ed,  would  have 
spared  the  Church  a  large  amount  of  bitterness  and 
controversy.  It  is  simply  this, — Ascertain  as  clearly 
as  it  may  he  ])ossibl6  the  literal  and  grammatical  mean- 
ing of  the  words  :  in  other  words,  ascertain  first  what  is 
the  ordinary  lexical  meaning  of  the  individual  words ; 
and  next,  Avhat,  according  to  the  ordinary  rules  of  syn- 
tax, is  the  first  and  simplest  meaning  of  the  sentence 
which  they  make  up.  .  .  .  AYe  almost  turn  away  with  a 
smile  from  such  a  thread-bare  rule,  and  yet  there  is  real- 
ly no  rule  that  has  been  less  followed  in  the  interpreta- 
tion of  the  ]N'ew  Testament ;  and  none  which  in  spite  of 
all  boasted  recent  improvement,  it  is  more  necessary 
calmly  to  restate  and  enhance.  The  fall  force  of  Her- 
mann's almost  indignant  protest^  against  the  principles, 
or  rather  absence  of  all  princij)les,  on  which  the  Kew 

*  In  his  edition  of '  Tiger's  Idioms,'  p.  788. 


Essay  IX.]  SCmi'TURE,  AND  ITS  INTEEPEETATION.  491 

Testament  was  interpreted  dui-ing  all  the  earlier  portions 
of  his  life,  is  now  happily  rendered  somewhat  unneces- 
sary. A  pupil  of  the  great  scholar  was  among  the  lirst 
to  restore  the  more  reverent  and  accurate  exegesis  of 
an  earlier  day,  and  since  that  time  there  has  been  a 
continuance  of  efforts  in  the  same  direction.  Still  it 
must  be  clear  to  every  quiet  observer,  that  there  is  a 
strong  desire  evinced  in  many  quarters  to  evade  the 
rule,  and,  under  cover  of  escape  from  pedantry,  to  en- 
deavour to  make  Scripture  mean  what  we  think,  or 
what  wx  wish,  not  what  it  really  says  to  us.  The  mode 
of  procedure  is  simple,  but  effective.  We  are  first 
told,  as  Chrysostom  told  us  long  ago,''^  that  we  are  to 
catch  the  spirit  of  tlie  author,  and  next  invited  to  take 
a  step  onward,  and  do  what  that  great  interpreter  neither 
did  nor  sanctioned — rectify  by  the  aid  of  our  own  "  veri- 
fying faculty"  the  imperfect  utterance  of  words  of 
which  it  is  assumed  we  have  caught  the  real  and  in- 
tended meaning.  ISTo  mode  of  interpretation  is  more 
completely  fascinating  than  this  intuitional  method, 
none  that  is  more  thoroughly  welcome  to  the  excessive 
self-sufficiency  in  regard  to  Scriptural  interpretation 
of  which  we  are  now  having  so  much  clear  and  so 
much  melancholy  evidence.  To  sit  calmly  in  our  studies, 
to  give  force  and  meaning  to  the  faltering  utterances 
of  inspired  men,  to  correct  the  tottering  logic  of  an 
Apostle,  to  clear  up  the  misconceptions  of  an  Evange- 
list, and  to  do  this  without  dust  and  toil,  without  exposi- 
tors and  without  Versions,  without  anxieties  about  the 
meanings  of  particles,  or  humiliations  at  discoveries 
of  lacking  scholarship, — to  do  all  this,  thus  easily  and 
serenely,  is  the  temptation  held  out ;  and  the  weak,  the 
vain,  the  ignorant,  and  the  prejudiced  are  clearly  prov- 
ing unable  to  resist  it.  Hence  the  necessity  of  a  re- 
turn to  first  principles,  however  homely  they  appear. 

To  set  forth,  if  need  be,  still  more  clearly  the  prac- 
tical value  of  the  foregoing  rule,  let  us  take  a  few,  al- 
most chance-met  examples,  in  which  attention  to  gram- 
matical accuracy  often  serves  to  remove  difficulties  or 

*  Sec  Chrysostom,  'Comment,  on  Gal.',  torn,  x.,  p.  801  C  (ed.  Boned.  2), 


492  "^I^S  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  IX 

misapprehensions  of  old  standing,  and  tliat,  too,  in 
questions  of  considerable  importance.  Let  us  observe, 
for  instance,  liow  an  attention  to  the  force  of  a  tense 
removes  all  possible  difficulty  from  such  a  verse  as 
Acts  ii.  47,  and  adds  a  deepened  significance  to  the 
weighty  words  we  find  in  such  passages  as  2  Cor.  ii.  15. 
How  simply,  yet  how  instructively,  the  simple  parti- 
ciples place  the  two  classes  before  us,  each  under  its 
aspects  of  progress  and  development,  each  capable  of 
reversed  attitudes  and  directions,  but  each  at  the  time 
of  consideration  wending  its  way ;  the  one  silently 
moving  onward  to  light  and  to  life,  the  other  turning 
its  sad  steps  to  darkness  and  to  death  !  The  mere  tense 
is  in  itself  a  sermon  and  a  protest :  a  sermon  of  blended 
warning,  consolation,  and  hope,  to  those  who  will  pause 
to  meditate  on  its  significance ;  a  protest,  and  a  very 
strong  protest,  against  those  who  tell  us  that  the  exist- 
ence of  "  two  classes  of  men  animated  by  two  oppos- 
ing principles,"  though  the  teaching  of  Scripture,  "  is 
contrary  to  the  teaching  of  experience."  Let  us  ob- 
serve again  how,  upon  a  due  recognition  of  the  very 
same  grammatical  fact,  the  imputation  of  mistaken  ex- 
pectations in  an  Apostle  (1  Thess.  iv.  17)  becomes  al- 
most wholly  wiped  away, — how  some  details  of  the 
Last  Supper  {heiirvov  jivofievov,  John  xiii.  2  :  even  with 
the  ordinary  reading  (yevofievov,  the  correct  translation 
removes  difficulties)  supposed  to  be  conflicting  or  im- 
possible to  arrange,  admit  of  easy  and  natural  expla- 
nation ;  and  how,  to  take  a  last  instance,  the  innocent 
but  pointless  imagery  of  the  "cloven"  tongnes  (Acts 
ii.  3)  passes  at  once  into  something  pertinent  and  in- 
telligible, and  especially  consonant  with  the  workings 
of  that  Eternal  Spirit  that  divideth  "  to  every  man 
severally  as  He  will."  Under  the  application  of  similar 
principles  of  accuracy,  much  of  the  verbal  difficulty 
disappears  in  Mark  xi.  13,  the  true  force  of  the  apa 
combined  with  the  knoAvn  fact  of  leaves  being  posterior 
to  the  fruit,  making  the  reader  feel  how  it  was  the  un- 
seasonable display  that  led  to  the  wfercnce,  and  how 
the  Saviour  drew  nigh  to  see  if  an  inference  so  just  was 


Essay  IX.]  SCEIPTLTRE,  AND  ITS  INTEKPRETATION.  493 

to  be  substantiiitecl.  To  add  two  or  three  more  instan- 
ces :  the  great  exegetical  difficulty  in  John  xx.  17  ap- 
pears modified,  if  not  removed,  by  taking  into  consid- 
eration the  tense  of  the  verb  utttov  (not  a-ijrr)) ;  a  train 
of  profound  speculation  is  suggested  by  the  accurate 
translation  of  one  word  in  Col.  ii.  15  (aTre/cSfcra/xez/o?), 
and  relations,  if  not  established,  yet  rendered  probable 
between  the  act  specilied  in  that  mysterious  clause  and 
the  last  three  hours  of  darkness  on  Golgotha.  The 
recent  controversy  relative  to  the  precept  in  Matt.  v. 
32  is  almost  settled  when  we  pause  to  recognize  the 
difference  between  the  nature  of  the  predications  re- 
spectively conveyed  by  the  participle  with  and  the 
participle  without  the  article;  and, to  conclude  with  an 
instance  of  a  similar  application  of  the  same  grammat- 
ical principle,  a  yevj  great  amount  of  difficulty  is  re- 
moved in  the  interpretation  of  the  very  obscure  pas- 
sage, 1  Pet.  iii.  18  seq.,  if,  besides  adopting  the  true 
reading  irvevfiari  (not  rep  irvev/jLan,  Idee.)  and  referring 
it  to  the  Saviour's  human  spirit,  we  also  observe  that  the 
participle  aireiOricraaiv  involves  no  direct  predication 
{''luho  were"),  but  partially  discloses  the  reason  of  the 
gracious  procedure  {^'inasmitch  as  they  were"),  and 
causes  the  difficulty  ever  felt  in  the  specification  of  this 
one  class  in  some  degree  to  disappear. 

We  now  pass  to  a  second  rule,  equally  simple  and 
homely  with  that  which  we  have  just  considered  and 
exemplified,  and  to  which  it  may  be  considered  to 
form  a  kind  of  supplement  or  corollary.  It  is,  in  iact, 
involved  in  the  very  definition  of  the  true  method  of 
interpreting  Scripture,  and  is  simply  as  follows : — lllus' 
trate^  wherever  possiUe^  hy  reference  to  history^  iopog- 
Ta])liy^  and  antiquities. 

On  a  rule  so  very  natural  and  obvious  little  more 
need  be  said  than  this,  that  the  ordinary  reader  can 
scarcely  form  any  conception  of  the  strangely  difterent 
aspects  which  many  of  the  leading  events  in  Scri]^ture 
— for  example,  many  of  the  scenes  in  our  Lord's  life — 
will  bo  found  to  assume  when  the  rule  is  carefully  ob- 
served.    We  may  especially  remark  this  in  reference 


494  -^I^S  T<^  FAITH.  [EeSATlX. 

to  illustrations  from  topography.  To  modern  travellers 
in  Palestine  the  student  of  Scripture  is  under  obliga- 
tions which  as  yet  have  not  by  any  means  been  fully 
recognized.  By  the  aid  of  their  narrative  we  can 
sometimes  almost  place  ourselves  in  the  position  of  the 
first  beholders,  and  see  the  whole  scene  of  mystery  or 
mercy  disclose  itself  before  our  eyes.  The  Triumphal 
Entry  becomes  almost  an  event  in  which  we  ourselves 
have  borne  a  part  when  we  read  the  narrative  with  all 
the  illustrations  that  have  been  furnished  by  the  trav- 
eller or  the  antiquary.  We  can  feel  ourselves  almost 
led  to  the  spot  where  the  opening  view  of  the  Holy 
City  called  forth  the  first  shouts  of  the  jubilant  multi- 
tude ;  we  can  realize  the  strange  pause,  and  feel  the 
naturalness  of  the  transition  from  meek  triumph  to 
outgushing  tears,  when  some  turn  in  the  rocky  road 
made  the  City  of  the  Great  King  rise  up  suddenly, 
everf  as  the  modern  traveller  tells  us  it  still  is  found  to 
do,  in  all  its  full  extent,  and  in  all  that  stateliness  and 
beauty  which  was  so  soon  to  pass  away.  All  the  scenes 
near  to  or  connected  with  the  Lake  of  Gennesareth  will 
be  found  to  be  brought  home  to  us  by  any  of  the  better 
recent  descriptions  of  the  locality,  in  a  manner  and  to 
a  degree  that  w^e  could  scarcely  have  conceived  possi- 
ble beforehand.  We  seem,  for  example,  to  appreciate, 
for  the  first  time  in  all  its  fulness,  the  allusion  to  the 
"city  on  a  hill"  (Matt.  v.  14)  when  we  are  told  that 
from  the  horned  hill  that  has  been  lately  almost  agreed 
on  as  the  probable  scene  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount, 
the  heights  on  which  Safed  stands  are  distinctly  visible, 
and  form  the  striking  object  in  the  distant  landscape. 
We  feel,  again,  the  force  of  the  /care/S?;  in  Luke  viii.  23, 
when  we  recall  what  we  may  perhaps  have  read  but 
yesterday  of  the  low-lying  lake,  and  the  deep-cut  ravines 
and  gorges  in  the  vast  and  naked  plateau  behind,  down 
which  the  storm- wind  rushes  as  fiercely  and  as  continu- 
ously as  of  old.^"  We  pause  with  interest  on  what 
otherwise  might  have  seemed  a  mere  question  of  criti- 

*  See  the  remarkably  interesting  description  in  Dr.  Thomson's  'The 
Laud  and  the  Book,'  vol.'ii,,  p.  32. 


E83AYIX.]  SCEIPTUEE,  AND  ITS  INTEKPEETATION.  495 

cal  detail,  ^vlien  we  read  in  the  traveller's  journal  that 
round  a  few  scattered  ruins  in  a  lonely  wady  still 
lingers  a  name  which  brings  up  the  Gergesa  of  the 
first  Evangelist's  narrative,  and  which  almost  forces  us 
to  muse  on  the  extreme  naturalness  of  the  circumstance 
that  he  who  knew  the  lake  so  well  should  almost  in- 
stinctively be  specific,  and  that  the  other  two  narrators 
should  use  names  of  a  wider  reference,  and  more  famil- 
iarly known  to  their  Greek  or  their  Eoman  readers/'* 
How  interesting  a^ain,  in  the  hands  of  an  interpreter 
who  will  make  it  his  duty  to  gather  up  all  the  items  of 
antiquarian  information,  is  the  narrative- of  the  Lord's 
presence  among  the  Doctors  in  the  Temple,  or  even  the 
briefly  mentioned  circumstances  of  His  hastened  Burial ! 
How  well  an  expositor  like  Meyer,  who  never  fails  to 
use  this  mode  of  illustration  in  a  very  telling  way, 
brings  at  once  up  before  us  the  scene  and  circumstance 
of  the  healing  of  the  paralytic !  How  the  narrative 
gains  in  freshness  and  interest ;  how  much  nearer  we 
seem  brought  to  the  past !  Till  w^e  made  use  of  this 
form  of  illustration,  the  events  of  the  Gospel  history, 
to  use  the  words  of  a  popular  writer  when  comment- 
ing on  this  very  subject,  are  almost  regarded  as  if  they 
had  taken  place  in  heaven  :  now  they  seem,  as  they 
truly  w^ere,  done  on  this  very  work-day  earth  we  tread 
on,  under  circumstances  which  the  mind  can  be  brought 
fully  to  realize,  and  amid  scenes  which,  if  the  bodily 
eye  has  not  beheld,  the  imagination  can  readily  depict 
to  itself  when  stimulated  and  quickened  by  the  narra- 
tive of  the  graphic  observer.  The  real  and  vital  effect 
that  is  thus  produced  on  the  heart, — especially  of  the 
young, — the  positive  increase  to  our  iaith  that  is  sup- 
plied by  this  mode  of  illustration,  has  been  far  too 
much  undervalued  by  the  modern  interpreter. 

A  third  rule  of  very  great  inq^ortance,  and  of  a 
very  wide  range  of  application,  may  be  stated  as  fol- 
lows : — Develop  and  enunciate  the  meaning  vnchr  the 
liinitations  assigned  htj  the  context,  or,  in  other  words, 
Inteiyret  contextucdly. 

t  Sec  Thomson,  *Tbc  Land  and  the  Book,'  vol.  ii.,  p.  S3  scq. 


496  ^II^S  ^^  FAITH.  [Essay  IX, 

The  value  of  tins  rule  and  its  true  and  real  impor- 
tance will  be  sensibly  felt  in  all  the  various  forms  of 
applying  Scripture,  and  giving  its  doctrines  or  precepts 
their  true  and  proper  signilicance.  As  we  have  al- 
ready remarked,  the  present  rule  has  rather  more  to  do 
with  the  spirit  and  general  sentiment  of  the  passage 
than  with  the  immediate  elucidation  of  the  letter.  Its 
application,  Jiowever,  is  extremely  varied  and  exten- 
sive. In  really  numberless  cases  we  havg  nothing  to 
guide  us  in  our  decisions  except  the  connexion  and  the 
general  aspect  of  the  passage.  "Whenever  we  are  in 
difficulty  as  to  the  justice  or  pertinence  of  a  deduction, 
or  find,  as  we  often  do  find,  that  grammatical  consider- 
ations leave  us  in  a  state  of  uncertainty,  the  context  is 
that  which  acts  as  the  final  arbiter.  Our  rule  has  thus 
two  great  uses, — the  one  on  the  negative  side,  the  other 
on  the  affirmative.  Under  the  first  aspect,  it  serves  to 
restrain  improper  deductions  or  applications ;  under 
the  second,  it  lielps  in  deciding  between  two  or  more 
competing  interpretations,  each  suj^posed  to  be  gram- 
matically tenable.  We  will  give  a  few  examples  of  its 
use  and  application  in  both  cases.  To  take  a  first  in- 
stance, is  it  often  that  a  text  has  been  considered  as 
more  thoroughly  inclusive  in  its  application  than  the 
latter  part  of  Rom.  xiv.  23  ("  for  wdiatsoever  is  not  of 
faith  is  sin")?  Is  there  any  text  that  in  certain  con- 
troversies is  more  frecpiently  appealed  to  as  final  and 
absolute?  The  mere  English  reader  sees  in  the  very 
argumentative  mode  in  which  the  words  are  introduced, 
a  strong  confirmation  of  the  axiomatic  character  of  the 
words,  and  estimates  their  force,  and  extends  their  ap- 
plication accordingly.  The  inaccuracy  of  the  transla- 
tion of  the  particle  (Se)  that  connects  the  words  with 
wliat  precedes  seems  to  make  certain  what  might 
otherwise  have  appeared  doubtful,  and  the  clause  is 
used  without  hesitation  in  its  full  and  unlimited  force. 
On  the  exact  extent  of  the  a2-)plication  of  such  a  state- 
ment, it  may  not  be  easy,  nor  indeed  are  we  called 
upon,  to  express  any  very  definite  opinion  ;  but  with 
regard  to  its  plain,  primary,  and  general  meaning,  w^e 


Essay  IX.]  SCIlIPTUllE,  AND  ITS  INTERrEETATION.  497 

can  scarcely  be  in  ditiiculty  or  hesitation.  Wlien  we 
look  back  at  the  context  and  consider  the  subject-mat- 
ter, we  may  surely  say,  without  fear  of  contradiction, 
that  the  words  in  the  passage  before  us  were  not  meant 
to  be  applied  to  every  imaginable  case,  but  to  be  re- 
stricted to  scruples  or  cases  of  conscience  that  bear 
some  analogy  to  the  instances  which  the  Apostle  is 
discussing.  Take,  again,  on  the  other  side,  such  a  text 
as  Phil.  ii.  12.  The  concluding  clause  is  doubtless 
most  useful  as  a  corrective  to  the  many  unlicensed 
estimates  of  the  course  of  the  Divine  procedure  in 
man's  salvation,  but  to  dwell  upon  such  a  text  as  in 
any  degree  favouring  the  idea  that,  in  the  fullest  sense 
of  the  words,  our  salvation  is  in  our  own  hands,  is  sim- 
ply to  ignore  the  important  fact  that  the  next  verse 
supplies  the  coniirmatory  ground  (yap)  of  the  com- 
mand, by  stating  that  it  is  God  that  supplies  both  the 
will  and  the  energ}^  To  take  a  last  instance :  Can 
anything  really  be  more  unreasonable  than  what  has 
been  lately  said  about  our  practical  neglect  of  certain 
commands  given  by  our  Lord,  especially  such  a  com- 
mand as  Matt.  V.  o-i  ?  If  we  look  only  at  the  verse  by 
itself,  dislocated  from  the  context,  it  might  reasonably 
be  thought  to  be  a  command  which  w^as  designed  to 
include  every  form  of  adjuration,  judicial  or  otherwise. 
"When,  however,  we  look  at  the  verse  in  its  proper  con- 
nexion, the  limitation  l)CComes  ap])arent, — "Earco  Se  6 
X67C?  vfjLcbv,  Nal  val,  Ou  ov  (ver.  37).  Surely,  without 
any  casuistry  or  subtilty,  these  last  words,  with  their 
plainly  iin])lied  reference  to  general  life  and  conversa- 
tion, may  be  rightly  urged  by  the  interpreter  as  show- 
ing the  true  and  real  aspects  of  the  prohibition,  and 
may  exempt  the  Saviour  from  the  charge  of  having,  by 
an  acceptance  of  the  form  of  adjuration  used  by  Caia- 
phas  {^i)  el-Tra^^  Matt.  xxvi.  G4),  practically  violated  his 
own  command." 

To  exemi)lify  the  second  aspect  of  the  rule,  we  may 
take  almost  any  disputed  text  that  suggests  itself  to  the 

*  Sec  Arclideiicun  riaucc,  *  The  Exaniijlo  of  Christ  aud  Service  of  Christ, 
p.  lO'J. 


498  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  IX. 

memory,  and  we  shall  at  once  sec  the  use  and  applica- 
tion of  the  rule.  Let  us  take,  for  instance,  the  con- 
tested words  Sea  T?)?  T€Kvoyovia^,  1  Tim.  ii.  15.  Here 
we  have  at  least  two  con:ipeting  translations  :  the  one 
which  gives  the  substantive  a  somewliat  vague  but 
still  plausible  application,  the  other  which  connects  it 
with  the  great  Promise.  The  article,  especially  when 
thus  present  after  a  preposition,  throws  some  weight  in 
the  scale  ;  the  context,  in  which  the  allusion  is  special- 
ly to  Gen.  iii.,  and  to  the  circumstances  of  woman's 
lirst  transgression,  seems  to  decide  the  cpestion.  So, 
again,  to  take  another  example  out  of  the  same  Epistle, 
it  has  long  been  doubted  whether  the  command  in  ch. 
V.  22,  refers  to  Ordination  or  to  Absolution.  In  favour 
of  the  former  there  is  a  very  general  consent  among 
the  oldest  and  best  interpreters,  and  much  may  be 
urged  in  its  favour  ;  wdien,  however,  we  carefully  con- 
sider the  context,  the  preponderance  seems  so  much  on 
the  side  of  the  latter,  that,  in  spite  of  the  amount  of 
authority  on  the  other  side,  we  shall  perhaps  find  it 
difficult  to  resist  coining  to  the  decision  to  which  a 
due  observance  of  the  rule  of  contextual  interpretation 
seems  certainly  to  lead  us.  To  take  a  last  instance :  the 
exact  meaning  of  the  formula  hoKLfxd^eiv  ra  hia^epovray 
used  on  two  occasions  by  St.  Paul  (Rom.  ii.  18,  Phil.  i. 
10),  has  always  been  considered  very  doubtful,  owing 
to  the  differences  of  meaning  which  each  of  the  two 
verbs  will  fairly  admit  of.  As  far  as  lexical  usage 
goes,  the  words  may  be  understood  to  imply  a  discrim- 
ination between  things  that  are  different,  or  a  proving, 
and  thence  approval,  of  what  is  excellent.  Which 
meaning  are  we  to  adopt?  In  the  first  passage  where 
the  words  are  used  we  have  but  little  to  guide  us  either 
way ;  but  in  Phil.  i.  9,  the  prayer  for  an  increase  of 
love  in  knowledge  and  moral  perception  expressed  in 
the  preceding  verse  seems  to  decide  us  in  favour  of  the 
latter  view, — lo've  being  more  naturally  shown  in  ap- 
proval of  what  is  excellent,  and  so  w^orthy  of  love,  tlum 
in  a  mere  discrimination  between  elements  or  princi- 
ples that  involve  distinctions  or  degrees  of  difference. 


E88ATIX.]  SCrJI'TUKE,   AND   ITS   IXTEKrEETxVTION.  499 

We  now  come  to  the  fourth  rule,  which,  as  the  very 
terms  in  which  it  is  expressed  will  sufficiently  show, 
is  of  an  importance  not  inferior  to  that  of  any  one  of 
those  which  have  preceded.  It  may  be  thus  exi)ressed  : 
— Li  every  passage  elicit  the  fall  significance  of  all 
details. 

The  rule  seems  to  speak  for  itself.  Under  one  aspect 
it  bears  a  kind  of  supplemental  relation  to  the  first  and 
second  rules;  under  another  it  will  be  found  to  assist 
in  applications  of  the  third  rule,  as  being  frequently 
concerned  with  the  meanings  of  connecting  particles, 
and  so  with  the  contextual  relations  of  the  i)assage,  and 
its  general  logical  or  historical  drift.  It  thus,  though 
at  first  sight  a  mere  rule  of  detail  and  of  the  letter,  has 
much  to  do  with  the  spirit  of  the  passage,  and  will  be 
found  eminently  useful  in  suggesting  deductions.  As 
the  third  rule  served  to  regulate  the  apiMcations  of 
Scri])ture,  so  this  fourth  rule  will  be  found  to  have 
much  to  do  with  the  incidental  inferences  which  may 
be  drawn  from  it.  Further  comments  seem  unneces- 
sary. Let  this  one  remark,  however,  be  made, — that 
the  rule,  besides  being  obviously  a  rule  of  common 
sense,  is  really,  in  the  case  of  the  Scripture,  a  rule  of 
necessity  and  duty.  If  w^e  believe  the  Scripture  to  be 
inspired  of  God,  then  it  surely  follows  that  we  must 
never  rest  satisfied  till  we  have  elicited  the  fullest  and 
most  complete  significance  of  every  item  of  the  heav- 
enly Revelation  thus  mercifully  vouchsafed  to  us.  It 
becomes  positive  unfaithfulness  not  to  dwell  upon  every 
claus(^,  every  word,  every  particle,  if  we  have  any  rejd 
and  heart-whole  belief  that  what  we  are  permitted  to 
read  are  indeed,  as  they  were  rightly  termed  by  an 
Apostolical  Father,  "  the  true  sayings  of  the  lloly 
Ghost."  It  is  not  that  we  are  hampered  with  any 
theory  of  verbal  or  mechanical  inspiration ;  it  is  not 
that  we  completely  sympathize  with  the  somewhat  re- 
stricted view  (nol)le,  however,  in  its  very  restrictedness) 
of  a  great  Bil)lical  critic"^  of  our  own  day,  that  every 
individual  word  of  Scripture  is  written  by  the  very 

*  Dr.  Tregcllcs,  Preface  lo  'The  Book  of  Revelation.' 


500  -^^^^  ^^  FAITH.  [Essay  IX. 

finger  of  God;  it  is  simply  because  we  know  that  in 
every  case  words  are  the  appointed  media  of  ideas  and 
sentiments,  and  believ^e,  in  the  case  of  Scripture,  that 
Loth  the  ideas  are  heaven-sent  and  the  sentiments  in- 
spired. Knowing  this,  and  believing  this,  can  we  deem 
it  otherwise  than  our  highest  dut}^  and  privilege  to 
exhaust  the  fullest  significance  of  the  outward  letter, 
when  it  contains  enshrined  in  it  an  inward  spirit  thus 
holy  and  Divine  ? 

To  come  to  examples.  The  first  and  largest  class 
of  cases  which  may  be  alluded  to,  as  exemplifying  the 
value  and  usefulness  of  the  rule,  are  those  in  which 
much  depends  on  the  true  force  and  meaning  of  the 
various  connecting  particles,  whether  of  cause,  infer- 
ence, or  consequence.  These,  however,  we  must  be 
content  merely  to  allude  to,  as  examples  of  this  kind 
can  scarcely  be  adduced  without  fuller  remarks  on  the 
general  bearings  of  the  passage  than  our  limits  will 
permit.  Let  one  instance,  however,  be  given,  and  that 
in  one  of  the  most  important  of  the  doctrinal  passages 
of  the  ]N"ew  Testament, — Phil.  ii.  6.  Here  it  is  scarcely 
too  much  to  say  that  the  interpretation  turns  mainly  on 
the  j)roper  recognition  of  the  use  and  force  of  aXXa 
wdien  followino-  a  ne2:ative,  and  on  the  remembrance 
that  m  such  cases  it  marks  a  full  and  clear  antithesis 
between  two  members  of  a  clause,  "not  this — hct  that." 
Apply  this  to  the  passage  before  us,  and  we  see  that 
the  words  ov^  apiray^ov  r)ryii]<TaTo  k.  t.  \.  must  be  under- 
stood to  convey  some  idea  distinctly  antithetical  to 
oKXa  eavTov  eKevcoae,  and  that  no  interpretation  can 
be  safely  regarded  as  admissible  in  which  this  condition 
is  not  fully  satisfied.  Let  this  one  example  be  sufiicient; 
but  let  it  carry  with  it  both  a  suggestion  and  a  protest : 
a  suggestion,  that  in  many  a  contested  passage  similar 
methods  of  grammatical  generalization  may  be  applied 
with  equal  simplicity  and  success  ;  and  a  protest  against 
mere  assumptions  that  the  particles  of  the  !New  Testa- 
ment can  ever  be  safely  neglected,  or  quietly  disposed 
of  as  mere  "  excrescences  "  of  a  vitiated  style. 

A  second  and  larire  class  of  instances  to  which  the 


Essay  IX.J  SCllIPTUEE,  AND  ITS   INTEEPEETATION.  ^qj 

rule  applies,  are  passages  in  \vliieli  simple  and  com- 
paratively insigniticant  details  are  found,  Avlien  properly 
considered,  to  supply  some  fact  of  real  historical  inter- 
est. The  Gospels,  esi^ecially,  supply  us  with  a  vast  list 
of  striking  and  suggestive  examples.  To  name  only  a 
lew.  Of  what  importance,  historically  considered,  is 
the  simple  addition  of  the  word  'lepovaaXy/ju  in  Luke 
V.  17,  as  showing  the  quarter  whence  the  spies  came, 
and  marking,  throughout  this  portion  of  the  narrative, 
that  most  of  the  charges  and  machinations  came,  not 
from  the  natives  of  Galilee,  but  from  emissaries  from 
a  hostile  centre !  What  a  picture  does  the  ^)v  wpoouywv 
avrov<i  of  Mark  x.  32  present  to  us  of  the  Lord's  bearing 
and  attitude  in  this  llis  last  journey,  and  how  fully  it 
explains  the  ida/jLjSovvTo  which  follows!  How  expres- 
sive is  the  single  word  /caOij/ievai,  (Matt,  xxvii.  61)  in 
the  narrative  of  the  Lord's  burial,  as  depicting  the 
stupefying  grief  that  left  others  to  do  what  the  sitters- 
by  might  in  part  have  shared  in  !  How  full  of  wondrous 
significance  is  the  notice  of  the  state  of  the  abandoned 
grave-clothes  in  the  rock-hewn  sepulchre  (elolin  xx.  7) ! 
what  mystery  is  there  in  the  recorded  position  and  atti- 
tude of  the  heavenly  watchers  (ver.  12)!  What  a  real 
force  there  is  in  the  simple  numeral  in  the  record  of  the 
tivo  mites  which  the  widow  cast  into  the  treasury !  she 
might  have  given  one  (in  spite  of  what  Schoettgen  says 
to  the  contrary) ;  she  gave  her  all.  How  the  frightful 
ea  of  the  demoniac  (Luke  iv.  31)  tells  almost  pictorially 
of  the  horror  and  recoil  which  was  ever  felt  by  the 
spirits  of  darkness  when  they  came  in  proximity  to  our 
Saviour  (comp.  Matt.  viii.  29 ;  Mark  i.  23,  v.  7  ;  Luke 
viii.  28),  and  what  light  and  interest  it  throws  upon  the 
Kal  IBcbv  K.  T.  X.  of  Mark  ix.  20  in  the  case  of  the  de- 
moniac boy  !  Again,  of  what  real  importance  is  Ihc 
simple  7rop€v6eU  both  in  1  Peter  iii.  19  and  22  !  How 
it  hints  at  a  literal  and  local  descent  in  one  case,  and 
how  it  enables  us  to  cite  an  A]^ostle  as  attesting  the 
literal  and  local  ascent  in  the  other!  When  we  com- 
bine the  latter  with  the  avecfeepero  of  Luke  xxiv.  51 
(a  passage  undoubtedly  genuine),  and  pause  to  mark 


502  ^II^S  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  IX 

tlie  tense,  can  we  share  in  any  of  the  modern  difficulties 
that  have  been  felt  about  the  actual,  and  so  to  say 
material,  nature  of  the  heavenly  mj^stery  of  the  Lord's 
Ascension  ? 

We  pause,  but  only  to  pass  onward  by  a  very  slight 
transition  to  a  third  class  of  passages  in  which  impor- 
tant deductions  may  be  made  from  details  wdiich  an 
ordinary  reader  might  think  of  the  most  trivial  or  acci- 
dental nature.  Who,  for  instance,  would  take  much 
notice  of  the  order  in  which  certain  provinces  are 
enumerated  in  1  Peter  i.  1  ?  and  yet,  from  the  general 
direction  the  order  involves  (East  to  AYest),  the  locality 
of  the  writer  has  been  surmised  at,  and  an  item  supplied 
toward  settling  the  geographical  question  in  chap.  v.  13 
of  the  same  Epistle.  AVho,  again,  would  be  likely  to 
pause  much  on  the  fact  that  Samaria  was  placed  in 
order  before  Galilee  in  Luke  xvii.  11?  and  yet,  unless 
we  adopt  a  very  unnatural  explanation  of  the  j^assage, 
the  order  may  be  considered  as  placing  the  verse  in 
connection  w^ith  John  xi.  54,  and  as  pointing  to  the  in- 
teresting fact  that  the  last  journey  of  our  Lord  was  a 
kind  of  farewell-circuit,  which,  beginning  from  Ephraim, 
extended  through  Samaria,  Galilee,  and  Percea,  and 
terminated  at  Bethany  and  Jerusalem.  Few  perhaps 
w^ould  at  iirst  sight  be  inclined  to  pause  long  on  the 
words  ip^o/jbevo^;  dirb  dypov  used  both  by  St.  Mark 
(ch.  XV.  21),  and  St.  Luke  (ch.  xxiii.  26)  in  reference  to 
Simon  of  Cyrene ;  and  yet  they  supply  some  ground 
for  drawing  the  inference  that,  in  the  earlier  part  of 
the  day  referred  to,  field-work  had  been  done,  and  con- 
sequently that  it  was  not  Xisan  15,  but  Xisan  14,  and 
that  thus,  even  according  to  the  Synoptical  Evangelists, 
the  Lord  celebrated  the  Last  Supper  on  the  day  pre- 
ceding the  legal  Passover.  Again,  would  not  the  term 
''green  grass"  (Mark  vi.  39)  seem  to  imply  but  little? 
and  yet  this  specification  of  the  graphic  Evangelist 
exactly  liarmonizes  with  what  we  iearn  from  another 
Evangelist  (John  vi.  4),  viz.,  that  the  time  was  spring, 
and  further  renders  the  supposition  that  the  rich  plain 
at  the  north-eastern  corner  of  the  Lake  of  Genncsareth 


Essay  IX.]  SCKirTURE,  AND  ITS  INTEEPllETATION.  503 

was  tlie  scene  of  tlie  Fcccling  of  the  Five  Thousand  in 
every  respect  ^vortlly  of  attention.  Lastly,  the  agitated 
Avords  of  Mary  Magdalene  to  St.  Peter  (John  xx.  2) 
might  he  thought  of  very  little  use  in  heljjing  to  decide 
hetween  conflicting  views  on  the  harmony  of  tliig  por- 
tion of  tlie  narrative:  yet  from  the  jdural  oiSafxev,  wlien 
compared  with  olSa,  ver.  13,  we  seem  justified  in  draw- 
ing the  important  inference  tliat  tliough  St.  John  only 
specifies  Mary  Magdalene  as  having  gone  to  the  tomb, 
he  was  nevertheless  perfectly  well  aware,  that,  even  as 
she  herself  implies,  there  were  others  who  Avent  Avith 
iier  to  do  honour  to  the  Holy  Eod3\ 

Our  four  rules  of  interpretation  have  noAV  at  lengtli 
been  stated  and  illustrated.  That  they  are  important, 
and  of  considerable  practical  nse,  Avill  perhaps  have 
noAV  been  made  plain  by  the  examples  Avliich  have 
been  adduced.  From  these  Ave  shall  jirobably  liaA^e  per- 
ceived tliat  the  rules  have  not  only  their  positive  but 
their  negative  uses ;  and  that,  Avhile  the  first  tAvo  rules 
are  serviceable  in  tending  to  ensure  precision  and  stim- 
ulate research,  the  second  and  third  are  no  less  useful 
in  restraining  prejudice,  and  checking  that  impatient 
and  over-hasty  method  of  reading  the  Scripture  which 
Avill  not  2~>auso  to  seek  in  the  text  for  the  associations 
that  are  really  to  be  found  there.  Further,  the  rules 
proposed  haA'c  apparently  the  merit  of  being  simple 
and  obvious.  They  involve  no  refinements,  and  may 
be  expressed  in  very  few  Avords  :  all  the  four  being,  in 
iact,  reducible  to  one  general  canon — Interpret  (jram- 
maticalhj^  historically^  contextucdly,  and  mimdcly. 

But  the  real  point  of  interest  has  yet  to  bo  dis- 
cussed. 

On  carefully  considering  the  nature  and  character- 
istics of  the  above  rules,  it  must  be  plain  to  the  thought- 
ful reader  that,  though  useful  and  adequate  exponents 
of  the  grammatical  and  liistorical  metlu)d  of  interpret- 
ing Scripture,  they  are  still  rules  that  might  be  applied 
Avith  nearly  equal  success  to  the  interpretation  of  any 
other  collection  of  ancient  documents.  There  is  noth- 
ing in  any  one  of  them  that  makes  it  especially  a  rule 


504  '^I^S  TO  FAITn.  [Essay  IX- 

of  interpreting  ScriiftUTe.  We  have  really  to  a  certain 
extent  been  agreeing  to  interpret  Scripture  like  any 
other  book.  It  is  true  that  we  have  advocated  a  greater 
punctiliousness  than  would  be  thought  necessary  even 
for  interpreting  Plato  or  Aristotle  ;  it  is  true  that  we 
have  pleaded  for  a  minuteness  of  attention  to  detail, 
which  in  the  case  of  an  ordinary  Greek  writer  would 
be  tiresome  and  pedantic  ;  still  there  is  plainly  no 
feature  in  any  one  of  the  rules  that  can  fairly  be  con- 
sidered as  of  such  an  unique  character  as  we  sliould  ex- 
pect to  find  in  the  rules  for  the  interpretation  of  an 
unique  book  ;  and,  if  our  premises  are  right  that  Scrip- 
ture is  really  unlike  any  other  book  in  numerous  points, 
we  should  certainly  expect  to  find  in  numerous  points 
that  our  present  rules  are  insufficient  and  incomj^lete. 

And  so  w^e  find  them. 

There  are  at  least  three  large  classes  of  passages  in 
which  they  fail  in  ascertaining  for  us  the  true  mind  of 
Scripture ;  and  these  very  failures,  it  will  be  observed, 
force  upon  us  additional  rules,  gradually  more  and 
more  of  an  unique  character,  till  we  find  ourselves  at 
last  frankly  accepting  the  yet  lacking  general  rule  of 
true  Scriptural  interpretation.  But  let  us  not  antici- 
pate. We  have  said  there  are  at  least  three  classes  of 
passages  for  which  the  above  rules  are  not  sufficient. 
These  may  be  defined  roughly,  as  (1)  passages  of  gen- 
eral difficulty,  where  the  context  gives  us  no  means  of 
deciding  between  two  or  more  competing  translations, 
of  equal  correctness  in  point  of  logic  or  grammar ;  (2) 
passages  of  doctrineil  difficulty,  where  either  the  tenor 
of  the  declaration  is  doubtful,  or  where  opposing  de- 
ductions have  been  made  as  to  the  doctrine  actually 
conveyed  ;  (3)  passages  of  what  maybe  termed  tlieohxj- 
ical  difficulty,  i.  c.  where  the  fact  specified  or  the  prin- 
ciple referred  to  involves  mysterious  relations  between 
things  human  and  Divine  which  are  at  best  very  im- 
perfectly known  to  us.  In  all  these  three  cases,  espec- 
ially the  two  last,  the  rules  we  have  discussed,  though 
of  the. greatest  use  in  clearing  away  preliminary  diffi- 
culties, often  leave  the  main  difficulty  untouched.     Let 


Essay  IX.]  SCliirTUllE,  AND  ITS  INTEEPRETATION.  595 

US  illustrate  this  by  a  few  examples,  and  feel  out  by 
degrees  for  the  further  rule  or  rules  tliat  are  still  need- 
ed for  our  guidance. 

(1.)  Let  us  take  for  our  first  example  a  clause  from 
a  passage  of  general  difficulty,  and  indisputably  of 
great  importance,  the  opening  verses  of  St.  Paul's 
Epistle  to  the  Ephesians.  In  the  third  verse  much 
turns  on  the  exact  meaning  of  the  peculiar  term  iv  toI^ 
eTTovpavLOi^,  and  (to  narrow  the  question  by  leaving 
unnoticed  obviously  untenable  interpretations)  on  a  de- 
cision of  the  question, — whether,  with  the  Greek  ex- 
positors, we  are  to  give  the  words  an  ethical  reference, 
or  whether,  with  the  Oriental  versions,  we  are  to  con- 
ceive the  words  only  to  refer  to  locality.  The  context 
docs  not  seem  definitely  to  favour  either  view ;  and 
grammatical  considerations,  it  is  almost  unnecessary  to 
add,  leave  the  matter  equally  undecided.  In  other 
words,  our  first  and  third  rules,  on  which,  in  all  cases 
of  local  difficulty,  we  almost  wholly  rely,  here  fail  to 
guide  us.  How  then  are  we  to  decide  ?  If  we  turn  to 
the  best  modern  commentaries  we  shall  find,  and  right- 
ly find,  that  the  local  meaning  is  now  very  generally 
adopted,  such  seeming  certainly  to  be  the  meaning  in 
the  other  passages  in  the  Epistle  (ch.  i.  20,  ii.  G,  iii.'lO, 
vi.  12)  Avherc  the  formula  occurs.  In  a  word  the  nsiis 
scriheiidl  of  the  author  has  decided  the  question.  .  .  . 
The  meaning  of  the  difficult  and  similarly  ambiguous 
expression  aToi')(ela  rod  koct/jlov  (Gal.  iv.  3)  is  usually 
decided,  though  conversely,  on  the  same  principle ;  "a 
comparison  of  the  passage  with  Col.  ii.  8,  20  seeming 
to  cause  the  arguments  in  fixvour  of  the  ethical  mean- 
ing (rudimentary  religious  teaching  of  a  non-Christian 
character)  decidedly  to  ]>rcponderate.  .  .  Somewliat 
similar  ]u-inciples  are  used  in  deciding  on  the  meaning 
of  the  doubtful  7rapa6)]Kr]v  {Iicr.  irapaKaraO/jKTjv)  in  1 
■  Tim.  vi.  20  compared  with  2  Tim.  i.  12,  11.  .  .  In  a 
much  more  difficult  passage  to  which  we  have  already 
alluded,  Col.  ii.  15,  a  great  part  of  the  obscurity  rests 
on  the  first  clause,  and  especially  on  the  meaning  of 
the  word  aTre/cSfo-a/iei/o?.     In  spite  of  the  contextual  ar- 


50G  A^DS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  IX. 

gument  that  may  be  drawn  from  tlie  meaning  of  the 
associated  participle  6pta/j.l3ev(7a^,  the  translation  of  the 
Yulgate  ("  exspolians  ")  and  indeed  of  our  own  Author- 
ized Version,  is  now  commonly  given  up  by  careful 
scholars  in  favour  of  the  more  grammatically  accurate, 
but  certainly  at  first  sight  less  intelligible  "  exuens  se  " 
of  the  Claromontane  and  Coptic  Versions.  What  has 
led  to  this  decision  ?  To  a  certain  extent  grammatical 
precision,  but  mainly  the  undoubted  use  of  the  word 
by  the  Apostle  a  few  verses  later  (Col.  iii.  9)  in  the 
second  of  the  two  senses  just  specified. 

But  the  examples  above  alluded  to  have  had  main- 
ly to  do  Mdth  verbal  difiiculties.  Exactly  the  same, 
how^ever,  might  be  shown  in  cases  of  difficulties  in  the 
sentiment  conveyed.  Of  this  let  1  Pet.  iii.  19  and  ch. 
iv.  6  be  briefly  specified  as  examples.  They  are  sister- 
texts,  and  so  clearly  allude  to  a  kindred  mystery,  that 
no  interpreter  of  the  one  passage  would  fail  to  refer  to 
the  other  and  be  guided  by  it,  as  supplying  him  w4tli 
the  most  natural  and  indeed  authoritative  illustration. 
If,  for  example,  he  felt  swayed  by  the  local  term  tto- 
pevOeh  in  the  first  passage,  he  would  probably  find 
much  difficulty  in  believing  that  the  term  veKpoh  in 
the  second  passage  was  to  be  referred  to  the  spiritually 
dead,  those  '^  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins  "  (Eph.  ii.  1), 
rather  than  to  the  dead  in  the  ordinary  and  physical 
meaning  of  the  term.  If  one  passage  has  a  definite 
and  local  reference,  so  apparently  has  the  other.  The 
same  may  be  said  of  the  excessively  difficult  passages 
Col.  i.  19  and  ch.  ii.  9,  the  latter  of  -which  supplies  the 
only  authoritative  hint  for  the  translation  of  the  former. 

JSTow  to  what  do  all  these  examples  point  but  to 
this, — the  admission  that  difficulties,  even  of  a  very 
serious  nature,  are  often  to  be  removed  by  attending 
to  the  usus  scribendi  of  the  author  ;  or,  in  other  words, 
the  plain  and  serviceable  rule  emerges  to  view, — Let 
the  loriter  inter jprct  himself. 

But  it  wnll  certainly  be  said,  this  is  exactlj^  what  is 
or  ought  to  be  done  in  the  case  of  any  other  writer 
whose  precise  meaning  wc  wished  to  ascertain.     True  ; 


Essay  IX.]  SCKIPTUKE,  AND  ITS  INTEKPEETATION.  507 

but  tlie  diftcrcnce  of  the  subject-matter  makes  the  two 
cases  really  very  far  from  identicaL  In  the  one  case 
the  writer  may  be  deahiig  with  subjects  in  which  the 
assumption  of  a  rcguLar  and  consistent  way  of  express- 
ing liimself  in  reference  to  them  may  be  deemed  per- 
fectly reasonable  and  natural.  In  the  other  case,  the 
assumption  really  amounts  to  nearly  as  much  as  this, — 
the  expression  of  a  conviction,  that  in  discussing  sub- 
jects often  transcending  human  faculties,  and  in  com- 
municating the  mysteries  of  a  revelation  from  God,  the 
writer  is  consistent  with  himself.  The  rule  above-men- 
tioned, in  the  case  of  one  of  the  ISTew  Testament  writers, 
is  really  little  less  than  an  express  recognition  of  a  gen- 
eral and  pervading  inspiration, — an  influence  which, 
contrary  to  what  might  have  been  looked  for  in  the 
case  of  a  writer  on  subjects  above  man's  natural  pow- 
ers, kept  the  writer  always  in  harmony  with  himself, 
and  his  words  always  self  explanatory  and  consistent. 

(2.)  But,  to  pass  onward,  let  ns  next  observe  what 
amplifications  of  the  rule  are  suggested  by  examples 
of  the  second  class  of  Scriptural  ditHculties.  Let  iis  be- 
gin with  a  passage  of  very  great  difficult}^,  principally 
of  a  doctrinal  nature,  and  one  in  which  interpreters 
have  arrived  at  widely  different  results, — the  descrip- 
tion of  the  Man  of  Sin  in  2  Thcss.  ii.  3  scq.  Here  no 
interpreter  would  probably  fail  to  refer  to  the  parallel 
supplied  by  Daniel  (ch.  xi.  36  seq.)^  on  the  one  hand, 
and  to  the  description  of  the  characteristics  of  Anti- 
christ as  given  by  St.  John  in  his  first  Epistle  (cli.  ii. 
22,  iv.  3  seq.)^  on  the  other.  The  expositor  would  in 
fact  seek  for  his  most  trustworthy  elucidation  of  the 
passage  before  him  in  two  books  of  Scripture  written 
by  two  authors,  a  Prophet  and  an  Evangelist,  between 
whose  dates  there  was  probably  nearly  as  great  an  in- 
terval as  GOO  years.  Does  not  this  point  to  a  tacit  am- 
plification  of  the  preceding  rule,  and  docs  it  not,  in  ef- 
fect, amount  to  this,  —  Where  j^osnUc^  let  /Scriptio'e  in^ 
tvrj^ret  itself^  or,  in  other  words,  Inttvjn'et  accordhuj  to 
the  anaJofjy  of  Scripture  f 

If  this  be  stated  fairly  and  correctly,  is  it  not  clear 


508  ^^^^  'T^  FAITH.  [Essay  IX 

that  the  assimilations  that  Avero  practically  involved  in. 
the  former  rule,  Zet  the  lor'Uer  hiterpret  himself^  become 
still  more  significant  and  suggestive?  According  to  the 
obvious  tenor  of  the  latter  rule,  Scripture  appears  tac- 
itly to  be  recognized  as  an  organized  and  harmonious 
whole,  all  parts  of  which  are  so  quickened  by  the  same 
life  and  animated  by  the  same  Spirit,  that  no  sentiment 
of  any  one  of  the  Sacred  Writers  can  ever  receive  a 
more  convincing  and  trustworthy  interpretation  than 
that  which  is  sui3plied  by  the  sentiments  or  expres- 
sions of  another.  This,  properly  considered,  practically 
amounts  to  an  admission  of  the  inspiration  of  Scripture 
of  the  most  clear  and  decided  kind. 

But  let  us  take  yet  one  step  further,  and  consider 
the  interpretation  of  a  clause  in  another  passage  of  doc- 
trinal difficulty  which  all  will  agree  in  deeming  of  the 
most  profound  importance.  What  is  the  true  meaning 
of  the  words  irpcororoKo^;  ird(Trj<^  KT[(7eo)<^  (Col.  i.  15)  in 
their  reference  to  the  Eternal  Son  ?  Here  we  have  two 
interpretations,  widely  different,  yet  both  grammati- 
cally tenable,  and  one  (the  second)  considered  merely 
with  regard  to  grammar,  perhaps  even  obvious  and 
plausible.  According  to  the  one  interpretation,  our 
Lord  would  be  represented  as  "  begotten  before  every 
creature,"  and  the  reference  would  be  to  the  eternal 
generation  of  Christ ;  according  to  the  other,  it  would 
be  "  first-begotten  of  every  creature,"  or,  as  in  the  Syr- 
iac,  "of  all  creatures," — prior  to  them  in  origin,  yet  a 
created  being  like  themselves.  Which  view  are  we  to 
take  ?  Grammar  is  silent,  the  context  difficult  and  not 
decisive  (the  following  iv  dvro)  is  probably  not  "  h?/ 
Him"),  the  reasoning  deep  and  mysterious.  The  an- 
swer of  eveiy  calm  and  attentive  reader  of  Scripture 
will  probably  bo  promptly  given, — "  Undoubtedly  the 
former."  But  why?  "Because  the  whole  tenor  of 
Scripture  is  opposed  to  the  latter  view."  But  how  can 
this  tenor  of  Scripture  be  confidently  stated  ?  on  what 
does  the  assertion  rest  ?  Is  it  the  result  of  actual  and 
rigorous  investigation  of  tlie  whole  of  Scripture,  or  mere 
reliance  on  the  opinion  of  the  safe  side  ?     "  No,  neither 


Essay  IX.]  SCKirXUEE,  AND  ITS  INTEErrwETATION.  5Q9 

the  one  nor  the  other."  Then  on  what  is  the  adoption' 
of  the  former  of  tlie  two  views  really  based  ?  "  On  the 
teaching  of  the  Creeds,  as  the  authoritative  expositions 
of  the  true  tenor  of  JScriptnre."  In  other  words,  the 
example  has  at  last  led  ns  to  the  full  expression  of  the 
rule  that  has  been  gradually  disclosing  itself.  Scripture 
itself  has  at  length  taught  us,  by  the  gentle  leading  of 
its  own  difficulties,  the  true  and  vital  principle  of  all 
really  Scriptural  exegesis, — Intcrjyret  according  to  the 
analogy  of  Faith. 

And  this  is  the  rule.  This  the  rule — carped  at,  as 
it  has  been,  by  the  sceptical,  disregarded  by  the  self- 
confident,  violated  by  party  bias,  slighted  by  the  dis- 
loyal, and  derided  by  the  profane — to  which  we  have 
at  last  come,  abuost  by  an  inductive  process,  and  with 
the  aid  of  wliich,  in  conjunction  vritli  preceding  rules, 
we  may  even  venture  to  draw  near  to  the  third  class  of 
difficulties, — the  great  and  the  deep  things  of  God. 

(3.)  Into  these,  however,  we  cannot  now  even  at- 
tempt to  enter.  Our  limits,  wholly  preclude  us  from 
discussing  passages  of  which  each  would  require  not 
only  a  lengthened  consideration  of  the  context,  but  also 
the  introduction  of  details  which  would  be  unsuitable 
in  a  general  essay  like  the  present.  To  show,  however, 
what  class  of  passages  we  are  alluding  to,  we  will  pause 
simply  to  specify  a  few  that  now  suggest  themselves, 
and  may  partly  justify  the  distinctions  above  laid  down. 
In  addition  to  1  Pet.  iii.  10  and  others,  above  alluded 
to,  which  perhaps  may  seem  to  belong  more  exactly  to 
the  present  class,  let  us  specify  Matt.  xxvi.  20,  xxvii.  52  ; 
Mark  xiii.  32  ;  Luke  x.  18  ;  John  xxi.  22  ;  Eom.  viii.  10 
seq.,  2C,  ix.  IS  scq.  ;  1  Cor.  iii.  13,'  vi.  3,  xv.  28  seq. ;  2 
Cor.  V.  2  seq.,  xii.  2  seq. ;  Eph.  i.  12,  23,  ii.  2  ;  Col.  i.  10, 
20,  21:;  1  Thess.  iv.  15  scq.',  Ileb.  iv.  12,  vi.  -1;  2  Pet. 
ii.  4,  iii.  10 ;  Judo  G,  0  ;  and,  it  is  necessary  to  add,  the 
greater  part  of  the  Book  of  Eevelation. 

On  one  of  these  passages,  however,  and  on  one  only, 
let  us  make  a  passing  comment,  and  that  because  the 
;[)iissage  has  been  more  than  once  alluded  to  as  a  cor- 
rective and  counterpoise  to  what  are  termed  high  views 


610  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  IX. 

of  the  Divinity  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Tlie  passage 
is  Mark  xiii.  3*2,  tlie  words  of  which,  whether  considered 
in  reference  to  the  occasion  or  to  the  context,  merit,  in- 
deed, some  liigher  description  than  "simple  and  touch- 
ing," and  are,  as  they  have  always  been  deemed  to  be, 
among  the  most  deep  and  solemn  that  have  ever  been 
uttered  in  the  ears  of  man.  Yet  if  we  interpret  them 
according  to  the  analogy  of  Faith,  and,  let  us  not  fail 
to  add,  according  to  the  very  implied  limitations  of  the 
passage  itself,  we  can  feel  no  difficulty  as  to  their  true 
meaning.  In  the  very  silent  logic  of  the  associated 
terms,  the  ot'Se/?,  the  ol  dyyeXot  ol  iv  ovpavcf,  we  feel  a 
kind  of  implied  circumscription,  which  seems  to  prepare 
us  for  the  sense  in  which  w^e  are  to  understand  the  cul- 
minating ovhe  6  vm,  "  none  in  earth,  none  in  heaven, 
nay  not  even  the  Son,"  in  so  far  as  He  shares  any  ele- 
ment in  common  with  either,  in  so  far  as  He  vouch- 
Fifes  to  assume  iiniteness  and  corporeity.  What  we  in- 
stinctively surmise  as  we  read  the  passage,  the  analogy 
of  Scripture  and  Faith  assures  us  of, — that  when  the 
Lord  thus  spake  to  His  four  chosen  Apostles,  He  does 
virtually  assure  us  that  He  was  so  truly  man,  that  when 
He  assumed  that  nature  He  assumed  it  with  all  its  lim- 
itations, and  that  in  that  nature  He  vouchsafed  to  know 
not  what  as  Go.d  He  had  known  from  everlasting.  Why 
are  we  to  be  deterred  from  this  ancient  interpretation, 
why  are  we  to  obelize  the  words  with  Ambrose,*  or 
regard  them  as  a  conventional  statement  w^ith  Augus- 
tine,t  when  they  admit  of  an  explanation  so  simple, 
and  so  consonant  with  all  that  we  are  told  of  Him  who 
vouchsafed  not  only  to  be  incarnate,  but  to  increase  in 
wisdom,  and  to  be  a  veritable  sharer  in  all  the  sinless 
imperfections  of  humanity  ?  Is  there  really  any  greater 
difficulty  in  such  a  passage  than  in  John  xi.  33,  35, 
where  we  are  told  that  those  holy  cheeks  were  still  wet 
with  human  tears  while  the  loud  voice  was  crying, 
"Lazarus,  come  forth  !  " 

13.  This  portion  of  our  subject  has  thus  at  length 
come  to  its  close.     The  four  rules  of  interpreting  Scrip- 

*  'De  Fide,'  v.  10  (103).  +  *De  Geucsi  coutr.  Manich,'  i.  22  (34). 


Essay  IX.]  SCEIPTURE,  AND  ITS  INTEErEETATION.  ^n 

tiire  have  received  the  supplement  they  lacked.  The 
canon  which  embraced  them  has  now  tlie  addition  neces- 
sary to  make  it  applicable  to  those  passages  where  the 
difhculties  are  of  a  doctrinal  nature,  and,  further,  even 
to  those  still  deeper  passages  where  the  difficulties  arise 
from  the  profound  nature  of  the  revelation,  and  from  the 
allusions  such  passages  may  contain  to  mysteries  beyond 
our  full  powers  of  comprehension.  Scripture  interpre- 
tation is  now  not  merely  to  be  grammatical,  historical, 
contextual,  and  minute,  but  it  is  to  be  also — according 
to  the  analogy  of  Faith. 

Against  such  a  rule,  we  are  well  aware,  many  an  ar- 
gument will  be  urged,  many  an  exception  will  be  taken. 
We  have  been  told,  and  w^e  shall  often  be  told  again, 
that  to  interpret  by  the  JSTicene  or  the  Athanasian  Creed 
is  not  only  to  mar  the  simplicity  of  Scripture,  by  bring- 
ing it  in  contact  wdtli  what  is  artificial  and  technical, 
but  consciously  to  involve  ourselves  in  a  plain  and  pat- 
ent anachronism. 

To  such  mere  assertions,  for  mere  assertions  they  re- 
ally are,  it  is  not  necessary,  after  what  has  been  said,  to 
return  any  formal  answer.  It  may  be  enough  to  make 
the  two  following  remarks,  and  Avith  them  this  portion 
of  the  subject  sliall  be  concluded: — Firsts  the  charge 
of  anachronism  may  be  readily  disposed  of  by  observing 
that,  in  thus  interpreting  Scripture,  we  are  really  inter- 
preting it  by  what,  in  a  certain  sense,  is  anterior  to  it, 
viz.  the  principles  of  that  faith  of  which  Scripture  is 
itself  the  exponent.  Ante  mare  fluctus.  What  right 
have  we  to  assume  that  all  the  early  Christian  preach- 
ing was  only  the  outpouring  of  "  attachment  to  a  re- 
cently departed  friend  and  Lord  "  ?  AVith  what  justice 
can  we  say  that  the  whole  of  Christianity  was  con- 
tained in  the  words,  "  Believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
and  thou  mayest  be  saved,"  when,  even  in  the  very  ear- 
liest of  an  Apostle's  letters,  there  seems  satisfactory  ev- 
idence (comp.  1  Thess.  v.  1,  2  Thess.  ii.  5)  that  deeper 
things  were  communicated  orally  to  the  earliest  Chris- 
tian converts  than  were  afterwards  committed  to  writ- 
ing %     Most  justly,  then,  has  it  been  observed  that,  when 


512  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  IX. 

we  thus  appeal  to  tlie  principles  of  tlic  faith  fur  our 
guidance  in  expounding  Scriptural  difficulty,  we  are  in- 
terpreting, not  by  "  the  result  of  three  or  lour  centuries 
of  controversy,"  but  by  appeals  to  lixed  principles  of 
Christian  doctrine,  the  greater  part  of  which  were 
known,  believed,  and  acted  on  in  the  very  earliest  age 
of  the  Gospel.*  In  succeeding  centuries  these  funda- 
mental truths  may  have  been  couched  in  terms  of  great- 
er scientific  exactness  ;  the  various  controversies  of  the 
times  may  have  caused  the  Cliurch  to  put  forth  her  doc- 
trines in  forms  more  technically  accurate  or  more  logic- 
ally precise,  but  the  substance  was  the  same  from  the 
very  first,  and  it  is  on  that  substance  that  our  interpre- 
tation of  Scripture  is  really  based,  it  is  to  that  essential 
truth  of  which  the  Church  is  a  jDillar,  that  we  make  our 
natural  and  reasonable  appeal. 

The  second  remark  is  this,  that  those  who  are  much 
opposed  to  us  in  their  estimate  of  the  character  and  in- 
spiration of  Scripture,  really  in  effect  admit  the  prin- 
ciple we  are  contending  for.  To  say  nothing  of  the  oc- 
currence on  their  pages  of  such  terms  as  *'  the  analogy 
of  Scripture,"  when  the  subject  is  the  best  mode  of 
interpreting  it,  or  of  the  silent  but  important  admission 
that  the  principle  which  "  enables  us  to  apply  the  words 
of  Christ  and  His  Apostles"  is  neither  more  nor  less 
than  "the  analogy  of  faith," f — to  pass  over  all  these 
tacit  and  almost  instinctive  recognitions  of  the  one  great 
truth  (1  Tim.  iii.  15),  from  which  all  that  has  been  said 
above  comes  by  way  of  legitimate  deduction,  let  us 
merely  take  the  rule  which  others  have  laid  down,  and 
fairly  consider  whether  the  recommendation  to  '*  inter- 
pret Scripture  from  itself"  is  not  in  eff'ect  and  substance 
plainly  identical  with  much  that  has  been  already  advo- 
cated in  these  pages.  Such  a  rule,  in  the  first  place, 
involves  the  very  important  assumption  which  we  have 
above  alluded  to,  A'iz.,  that  Scripture  is  consistent  with 
itself,  even  when  such  consistency  might  be  appealed 

*  Sec  iMobcrly,  Preface  to  *  Sermons  on  the  Beatitudes,'  p.  Iii.  S;?;/.,  where 
this  argument  is  put  forward  with  great  clearness  and  force. 
+  See  'Essays  and  Reviews/  j).  410. 


Essay  IX.]  SCRIPTURE,  AND   ITS  INTERrEETATION.  5^3 

to  as  a  very  evidence  of  its  Divine  ori<>'in  ;  and  in  tlie 
second  place,  after  every  possible  limitation — viz.,  that 
we  are  to  understand  it  to  mean  interpreting  ^'  like  by 
like," — such  a  rule  is  still,  and  must  remain,  based  on 
the  recognition  of  the  sound  and  proper  principle  that 
Scripture  difficulty  must  be  explained  consistentl}'-  with 
Scripture  truth.  Of  this  truth  the  Creeds,  especially 
the  two  shorter,  are  not  only  compendious  but  author- 
itative abstracts,  summarily  vouched  for  by  the  keeper 
of  our  archives  and  the  upholder  of  their  integrity,  the 
Catholic  Church  of  Christ.  The  same  authority  might 
justify  us  in  similarly  applying  much  of  her  own  his- 
tory  and  ti-aditions  as  illustrative  of  Holy  Scrijoturc,  if 
even  not  deserving  the  title  of  an  aid  in  its  interpreta- 
tion. It  may  be  sufficient,  however,  to  claim  the  Creeds 
as  authoritative  summaries  of  Scripture,  and  so  author- 
itative guides  in  interpreting  Scripture,  being  in  fact 
themselves  the  epitome  of  that  from  which  it  has  been 
properly  conceded  that  Scripture  ought  to  be  illustrated 
and  expounded. 


14:.  The  main  department  of  our  subject  may  now 
be  considered  as  brought  to  its  natural  conclusion. 
Two  portions,  however,  still  remain  which  require  of 
us  a  passing  notice.  They  are,  in  fact,  the  two  ex- 
tremes between  which  the  portion  of  the  subject  on 
which  we  have  been  recently  engaged  seems  to  lie 
midway;  the  one  relating  exclusively  to  the  laws  of 
the  letter,  the  other  to  the  principles  of  applying  the 
sjiirit, — in  a  word,  the  Grammar  of  the  Sacred  Text, 
on  the  one  hand,  and  the  various  practical  applica- 
tions of  the  fully-ascertained  meaning  of  that  Text  on 
the  other.  A  few  words  shall  be  said  on  each  of  these 
portions  of  our  subject,  but  a  few  words  only,  there 
being  by  no  means  that  amount  of  misconception  and 
error  in  reference  to  either  of  these  portions  of  the 
subject  as  to  that  which  lies  between  them.  Still  a 
few  comments  may  be  profitably  made  on  each. 

Let  us  speak  iirst  of  the  application  of  Scripture,  as 
22* 


514  ~  ^I^S  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  IX. 

this  seems  most  iiatnrally  to  follow  a  discussion  on  the 
interpretation  of  it, — application,  in  fact,  being  nothing 
more  than  interpretation  in  its  ultimate  and  most  ex- 
tended form. 

The  different  forms  which  the  application  of  Scrip- 
ture may  assume  are  obviously  as  many  and  as  diver- 
sified as  the  aspects  of  Scripture  itself.  We  have 
already  seen  that  Scripture  involves  a  system  of  proph- 
ecies and  types;  we  have  recognized,  also,  that  it 
contains  a  wide  range  of  double  meanings  even  in 
simply  historical  passages ;  and,  lastly,  we  have  found 
it  to  be  so  pervaded  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  that  not 
only  in  its  sentiments,  but  sometimes  even  in  its  very 
words  and  expressions  (see  above,  p.  468),  it  is  found 
to  involve  a  deep  and  a  Divine  significance.  These 
three  characteristics  at  once  lead  to  three  correspond- 
ing modes  of  application,  on  each  of  which,  as  being 
one  of  the  three  more  edifying  and  ^practically  useful 
modes  of  applying  Scripture,  a  few  comments  shall  be 
made. 

I.  The  subject  of  Prophecy  and  Typology  is,  un- 
doubtedly, one  of  difiiculty,  and  in  its  practical  bear- 
ings and  expansions  still  more  so.  It  is  extremely 
difficult  to  lay  down  any  rules,  and  yet  it  is  very 
precarious  to  attempt  such  methods  of  applying 
Scripture  without  some  external  guidance.  In  the 
case  of  unfulfilled  prophecy,  especially,  the  temptation 
to  indulge  in  unauthorized  speculation  is  often  exces- 
sive. Uneducated  and  undisciplined  minds  are  com- 
pletely carried  away  by  it,  and  even  the  more  devout 
and  self-restrained  frequently  give  themselves  up  to 
sad  extravagances  in  this  form  of  the  application  of 
God's  AYord.  The  result  is,  only  too  often,  that  better 
educated  and  more  logical  minds,  in  recoiling  from 
what  they  justly  deem  unlicensed  and  j)reposterous, 
pass  over  too  much  into  the  other  extreme,  and  deem 
Prophecy  in  every  form  as  a  subject  far  too  doubtful 
and  debateable  ever  to  fall  wuthin  the  province  of 
Scripture  application.  It  is,  we  fear,  by  no  means  too 
much  to  say,  that  a  great  part  of  the  present  melan- 


Essay  IX.J  SCKIPTURE,  AND  ITS  INTERrEETATION.  515 

clioly  scepticism  as  to  Messianic  prophecy  is  due  to 
the  ahnost  indignant  reaction  which  has  been  brought 
about  by  the  excesses  of  apocalyptic  interpretation. 
The  utmost  cantion,  then,  is  justly  called  for.     Nay,  it 
perhaps  would   be   well  if  unfulfilled  prophecy  were 
never  to  be  applied  to  any  other  purposes  than  those 
of  general  encouragement  and  consolation.     We  may^ 
often  be  thus  made  to  feel  that  we  are  in  the  midst  of 
a  providential  dispensation,  that  though  our  eyes  may 
be   holden   as   to   the    relations   of    contemporaneous 
events  to  the  future,  whether  of  the  Church  or  of  the 
world,  we  may  yet  descry  certain  bold  and  broad  out- 
lines, certain  tendencies  and  developments,  which  may 
make   ns   wend   onr   way   onward,   thoughtfully   and 
circumspectly, — wayfarers  who  gaze  with  ever-deepen- 
ing interest  on  the  contour  of  the  distant  hills,  even 
though  we   cannot   clearly   distinguish   the   clustered 
details  of  the  nearer  and  separating  plain.     But  though 
it  may  thus  be  wise  only  to  notice  unfulfilled  prophecy 
in  the  broadest  and  most  general  way,  it  is  far  other- 
wise  with  applications  or  "illustrations   derived  from 
what  has  either  obviously  received  its  fulfilment,  or, 
like  Deut.  xxviii.,  is  so  plainly  still  receiving  it,  that 
doubt  becomes  unreasonable  and  impossible.     In  this 
last  case,  for  instance,  the  mere  existence  of  such  a 
prophecy  has  been  with  reason  appealed  to  as  almost 
sufficient  in  itself  to  establish  the  inspiration  of  the 
whole  associated  Pentateuch.     More  particularly  can 
every  form  of  Messianic  prophecy  be  dwelt  upon  by 
the   conscientious   interpreter.      This,  indeed,   is    the 
loftiest  and  most  blessed  application  of  prophecy,  for 
purposes  of  edification,  that  man  can  make.     Hereby, 
more  especially,  are  we  permitted  to  realize  all  the 
deep  harmonies  between  the  earlier  and  the  later  dis- 
pensation.    In  the  light  shed  by  Messianic  prophecy, 
the  two  covenants  seem  no  longer  disunited,  but  one. 
The  Old  Testament  as  it  "telleth  of  Christ  that  should 
come,"  blends  insensibly  into  the  New,  that  "tellcthof 
Christ  that  is  conic,''  *  until  both  become  recognized 

*  Compare  Uookcr,  'Laws  of  Eccl.  Politv,'  1.  U.  4,  vJ.  i.,  p.  270  (ed. 
Keble). 


515  AIDS  TO  FAITK.  [Essay  IX. 

as  organically  connected  parts  of  one  Divine  ^vhole. 
The  Scripture  is  at  length  seen  and  felt  to  be  what  it 
truly  is — one  living  Book  ;  one,  because  pervaded  by 
the  holy  presence  of  one  ever-blessed  Lord ;  living, 
because  ever  teaching  of  Him  who  Himself  is  the 
Life,  and  whose  "  Life  is  the  light  of  men." 

Li  the  case  of  tijpes^  and  all  the  varied  forms  of 
supposed  typical  relations  between  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments,  some  greater  latitude  of  application  may 
perhaps  be  permitted.  Much,  probably,  will  have  to 
be  lost  to  that  which  must  sometimes  be  the  only 
guide — the  "spiritual  understanding"  (Col.  i.  9)  of  the 
expounder.  Even  in  such  cases,  however,  it  will  be 
found  desirable  to  recognize  some  general  fixed  prin- 
ciples. Special  rules  it  is  never  very  easy  to  lay  down ; 
but  perhaps  it  may  be  said  that  in  tracing  out  types, 
the  prudent  expounder  will  do  well  to  observe,  or  at 
any  rate  conform  to,  the  general  spirit  of  these  two 
rules :  Firsts  not  positively  to  assert  the  existence  of 
typical  relations  between  persons,  places,  or  things, 
unless  it  should  appear,  either  directly  or  by  reason- 
able inference,  that  such  relations  are  recognized  in 
Scripture;  Secondly^  even  in  the  case  of  apparently 
reasonable  inferences  from  Scripture,  not  to  press  the 
typical  allusion  unless  we  have  the  consent  of  the  best 
of  the  earlier  expositors.  The  use  and  general  bearing 
of  each  rule  shall  be  briefly  exemplified. 

The  first  rule,  it  will  be  easily  seen,  will  be 
especially  useful  in  lopping  away  all  those  supposed 
typical  meanings  which,  as  we  have  already  seen, 
some  even  of  the  soundest  of  the  early  interpreters 
were  ever  discovering  even  in  the  simplest  incidents  of 
the  Old  Testament.  By  this  rule,  for  instance,  the 
mystical  or  typical  meaning  assigned  to  Eahab's 
scarlet  thread,  or  to  Lot's  two  daughters,  old  as  they 
may  be,  and  belonging,  as  these  two  cases  really  do,  to 
the  sub-apostolic  age,  must  still  be  regarded  as  at  best 
only  precarious  fancies.  By  the  same  rule,  too,  many 
of  the  exaggerated  attitudes  of  popular  typology  will 
become  beneficially  restrained.     AVhile  we  may  enlarge 


Essay  IX.]  SCRIPTURE,  AND  ITS  INTEErRETATION.  5^7 

Avitli  all  confidence  not  only  on  sncli  nndoubted  his- 
torical types  as  Adam  (Horn.  v.  14 ;  1  Cor.  xv.  45),  or 
Melcliizedec  (Ileb.  vii.  3)  of  one  kind,  and  the  Hood 
(1  Pet.  iii.  21),  or  the  Eed  Sea  (1  Cor.  x.  2)  of  another, 
but  even  on  such  clear  instances  as  the  rite  of  circum- 
cision (Col.  ii.  11),  the  paschal  lamb  (1  Cor.  v.  7),  the 
functions  of  the  High-priest  on  the  Day  of  Atonement, 
and  other  thin2;3  alluded  to  by  the  author  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  llebrews,  we  may  feel  very  suspended 
in  our  judgment  as  to  such  an  ancient  and,  at  first 
sight,  plausible  type  as  Egypt  and  the  evil  world. 
The  acknowledged  typical  relations  of  Canaan  and  the 
Cliristian's  heavenly  home,  and  of  the  Ked  Sea  and 
Baptism,  might  seem  to  throw  back  some  probability 
on  such  a  relation  between  the  world  which  the  Chris- 
tian renounces  and  the  place  from  which  Israel  was 
called  ;  but  such  a  type  could  never  be  insisted  on :  no 
argument  could  ever  be  built  upon  it,  nor  could  it 
ever  claim  to  be  ranked  really  higher  than  an  ancient 
and  ingenious  fancy.  IS'ay,  even  such  an  almost  self- 
evident  type  as  Isaac,  with  all  its  startling  coincidences 
of  phice  and  circumstances  (Gen.  xxii.  6 ;  John  xix. 
17),  can  scarcely  be  regarded  as  definitely  resting  on 
the  authority  of  Scripture  (Heb.  xi.  10  does  not  seem 
to  prove  it),  but  can  only  justly  be  regarded  as  an 
inference  from  its  general  tenor,  though,  on  the  other 
liand,  no  reasonable  expounder  in  the  world  could  fail 
to  accept  it  as  an  example  that  rests  on  the  instinctive 
and  unanimous  consent  of  the  Church. 

We  thus  are  brought  to  our  second  rule,  and  can 
now  sec  tliat  what  otherwise  might  have  seemed  super- 
fluous cannot  very  readily  be  dispensed  with.  The 
united  judgment  of  the  earliest  and  soundest  expositors 
is,  we  perceive,  not  wholly  to  be  set  aside ;  tlie  tradi- 
tion of  the  Church  not  to  be  rejected  when  tlie  infer- 
ence from  Scripture  might  seem  of  a  doubtful  or  sus- 
pended character.  And  if  the  nile  be  thus  useful  in  its 
affirmative,  undoubtedly  it  is  so  in  its  negative  as2)ects, 
as  serving  to  repress  mere  conjecture  and  ingenuity. 
To  conclude  witli  an  instance  of  its  negative  use,  we 


518  AIDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  IX 

may  allude  to  an  ingenious  attempt  to  connect  the  cir- 
cumstances mentioned  by  all  the  four  Evangelists  in  ref- 
erence to  our  Lord  and  Earabbas,  with  the  sortition  in 
reference  to  the  two  goats  (Lev.  xvi.  5  seq.)  on  the  Day 
of  Atonement.  At  first  there  seems  a  strange  persua- 
siveness in  the  suggested  relations  of  type  to  antitype ; 
nay,  there  might  be  thought  to  be  some  Scriptural  basis 
in  the  similar  comparisons  that  are  indicated  or  hinted 
at  (comp.  ch.  xiii.  11, 12)  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 
The  opinion  of  the  early  writers  here  interposes  a  salu- 
tary caution.  We  find  that  the  ceremonies  connected 
with  the  scape-goat,  and  the  somewhat  similar  ceremo- 
nies in  the  cleansing  of  the  leper  (Lev.  xiv.  2  seq)  were 
almost  unanimously  referred  alone  to  Christ, — to  Christ, 
as  both  dying  for  us,  and,  by  his  Eesurrection,  living 
again  for  evermore.  The  circumstances  of  the  case,  it 
was  justly  argued,  required  a  type  which,  to  be  com- 
plete, must  necessarily  be  two-fold,  and  which,  to  be 
fully  significant,  must  present  two  aspects,  as  it  were, 
of  the  same  antitypal  mystery.  If  it  be  admitted  that 
the  scape-goat  can,  by  inference,  be  deemed  a  Scrip- 
tural type  of  Christ,  it  is  probable  that  we  shall  reject 
the  ingenious  parallel,  and  accept  the  view  taken  by 
the  earlier  expositors. 

The  substance  of  the  preceding  remarks  is  this, — 
not,  by  any  means,  that  the  typical  relations  between 
the  Old  and  New  Testaments  are  few  and  limited,  for 
it  is  really  probable  that  they  are  much  more  numer- 
ous and  extensive  even  than  they  have  been  supposed 
to  be,  but  simj^ly  that  the  number  of  examples  of  such 
relations  that  rest  on  an  undoubted  Scriptural  basis  is 
not  large,  and  hence  that  caution  is  required  in  press- 
ing as  types  what  cannot  actually  be  proved  to  be  at 
all  more  than  ingenious  and  plausible  analogies.  Li  a 
word,  we  may  frequently  and  beneficially  use  typology 
by  way  of  illustration,  but  it  is  not  often  that  we  can 
use  it  as  the  foundation  of  an  argument. 

11.  If  caution  be  required  in  dealing  with  types, 
still  more  so  is  it  necessary  in  attempting  to  set  forth 
second  meanings  in  passages,  historical  or  otherwise, 


Essay  IX.]  SCRIPTURE,  AND  ITS  INTERPEETATION.  5]L9 

which  Iiave  not  been  authoritatively  cleclared  to  in- 
volve them.  It  is  not  unreasonable  to  suppose  that  the 
passages  which  may  have  further  and  deeper  meanings 
than  appear  on  the  surface  are  by  no  means  of  uncom- 
mon occurrence.  In  a  meditative  j'eading,  even  of  a 
few  chapters,  we  can  scarcely  fail  to  meet  with  passage 
after  j)assage  which  we  feel,  almost  instinctively,  to  be 
fraught  with  a  signiiicance  much  beyond  that  of  the 
mere  letter,  but  in  the  case  of  which  we  can  never 
positively  assert  the  existence  of  such  a  meaning,  much 
less  state  what  we  deem  it  to  be.  In  the  New  Testa- 
ment, the  passages  which  calm  and  reasonable  exposi- 
tors have  adduced  as  involving  second  and  deeper 
meanings  are  probabl}^  under  ten,  and  out  of  these  the 
more  plausible, — the  reference  of  the  Parable  of  the 
Good  Samaritan  to  our  Lord,  the  reference  of  John  vi. 
35  to  one  Sacrament,  and  of  John  xix.  34  seq.  to  both ; 
and,  lastly,  the  significance  of  the  position  of  the  two 
thieves  (Luke  xxiii.  S3), — are  all  so  debatable  that 
more  perhajDS  can  never  be  said  than  this,  that  they 
serve  to  render  it  presumable  that  there  are  many  pas- 
sages which  may  have  second  meanings;  not,  however, 
that  they  substantiate  their  existence.  On  such  a  sub- 
ject then,  no  rule  can  be  laid  down;  this  only  may  be 
said,  that  he  who  reads  Scripture  under  the  persuasion 
that  it  often  contains  depths  not  yet  sounded,  and  mean- 
ings not  yet  ascertained,  will  certainly  read  it  with  far 
greater  spiritual  profit  to  himself  than  he  who  believes 
lie  has  fully  arrived  at  the  mind  of  Scripture  when  he 
has  made  out  the  mere  outward  meaning  of  the  letter. 
The  subject  involves  many  curious  details,  such  as  the 
recurrence  of  certain  numbers  ( of  e.  g.  "  forty"  in  several 
incidents  both  of  the  Old  and  of  the  New  Testaments), 
and  the  trace  of  a  supposed  mystical  economy  of  times 
and  seasons ; — but  with  these  the  wise  and  reverent  in- 
terpreter will  never  overmuch  busy  himself.  lie  may 
feel  and  know  that  God  is  a  God  of  order,  and  not  of 
confusion,  and  he  may  see  much  in  details  in  which 
that  order  seems  plainly  to  be  traceable,  but  he  will 
never  seek  to  prove  it  by  an  apj)eal  to  facts  that  may 


520  ^^^^  TO  FAITH.  [EB3AY  IX. 

probably  liavc  no  such  relations  as  those  ascribed  to 
them,  or  by  urging  principles  which  all  graver  thinkers 
would  not  hesitate  to  pronounce  as  illusory  or  unde- 
monstrable. 

III.  The  same  caution  must  obviously  be  disphayed 
in  the  third  form  of  Scriptural  application, — practical 
deductions  from  Scriptural  statements.  The  very  prin- 
ciple on  which  such  a  mode  of  applying  Scripture  is 
based,  viz.,  that  Scripture  is  divinely  inspired,  and  that 
deductions  may  be  safely  made  from  what  are  thus, 
without  metaphor,  the  very  Oracles  of  God,  alike  indi- 
cates the  necessity  of  such  caution,  and  hints  at  its  re- 
quired amount.  In  all  passages,  doctrinal  or  otherwise, 
in  which  the  meaning  seems  to  be  clear  and  unques- 
tionable, deductions  obviously  may  be  made  of  such  a 
kind  as  to  assume  almost  the  aspect  of  definite  and 
authoritative  revelations.  In  other  passages,  in  which 
the  difficulties  are  more  of  what  we  have  termed  a  the- 
ological character,  positive  deductions  will  often  be 
found  to  be  not  only  precarious,  but  presumptuous. 
They  may  sometimes  be  permitted  for  private  edifica- 
tion, being  in  fact  a  sort  of  expanded  form  of  religious 
meditation,  but  can  rarely  or  ever  be  safely  pressed 
upon  others,  or  be  profitably  drawn  out  into  systematic 
developments. 

To  illustrate  what  we  mean  by  an  example :  we 
may  rightly  and  properly  make  some  deductions  of  a 
definite  character  from  such  a  passage  as  1  Thess.  iv. 
15-17.  There  both  the  plain  and  distinct  statements 
of  the  passage,  and  the  certain  fact  that  this  was  really 
a  definite  revelation  for  definite  j^urposes  of  Christian 
comfort  (ver.  13,  18),  seem  to  warrant  our  drawing  in- 
ferences and  recognizing  harmonics  with  other  passages 
of  Scrii)ture  which,  however  strange  and  mysterious 
they  may  appear,  are  yet  to  be  considered  certain  and 
legitimate.  We  seem  to  have  the  fullest  right  for  assur- 
ing ourselves  that  there  will  be  a  first  resurrection  (ver. 
16  compared  with  Rev.  xx.  5)  in  which  the  elect  will 
alone  participate,  that  the  rising  of  the  holy  dead  will 
precede  the  assumption  of  the  holy  living,  and  that 


Essay  IX.]  SCRIPTURE,  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATION.  52I 

the  latter,  after  the  similitude  of  the  Lord's  Ascen- 
sion (Acts  i.  9),  robed  round  by  upbearing  clouds  {iv 
vecpiXaL^)^  perchance  tlie  mystic  chambers  of  the  last 
change  (1  Cor.  xv.  52),  will  leave  earth,  and  rise  to 
meet  the  Lord  in  tlie  air.  Such  statements  may  seem 
revolting  to  the  false  and  morbid  spiritualism  of  our 
times,  but  they  are  statements  which  the  gravest  ex- 
pounders of  an  earliei'  day  (while  traditions  of  the  true 
meaning  of  such  revelations  might  yet  be  lingering  in 
the  Church)  have  not  shrunk  from  putting  forward,  and 
wdiicli  may  be  justly  regarded  as  calm,  historical  com 
elusions  from  a  deep  but  historical  passage. 

The  case  is  diiFercnt  with  such  a  passage  as  Matt, 
xxvi.  29.  Here  we  may  perhaps  allow  ourselves,  with 
all  reverence,  to  express  a  humble  opinion  that  the 
words  mai/  allude  to  some  participations  in  the  ele- 
ments of  a  new  and  glorified  creation,  in  which  the 
Lord  may  vouchsafe  to  be  united  with  Ilis  elect ;  but 
to  say  more  than  this,  to  draw  any  deductions  as  to  the 
nature  of  the  resurrection-body,  would  obviously  be  in 
the  highest  degree  wild  and  hazardous.  Equally  rash 
would  it  be  to  draw  any  definite  conclusions  from  such 
passages  as  Eph.  iii.  9, 10,  as  to  the  limits  of  the  knowl- 
edge of  angels  in  reference  to  the  m^^steries  of  salva- 
tion (comp,  1  Peter  i.  12),  or  of  thQ2?rec{se  part  which 
these  Blessed  Spirits  take  in  human  affairs  from  such 
passages  as  Matt,  xviii.  10,  Ileb.  i.  14,  or  from  the  rec- 
ord of  such  special  interpositions  as  those  related  in 
Acts  V.  19,  X.  3,  xii.  Y,  al.  Even  in  passages  of  a  sim- 
pler nature,  our  real  ignorance  of  the  relations  between 
the  visible  and  invisible  world  may  prevent  our  mak- 
ing any  positive  deductions  from  such  passages  as 
Luke  iv.  39,  or  Mark  iv.  39 ;  though  we  can  hardly 
fail  gravely  to  meditate  on  the  strange  fact  that  in  one 
case  the  seeming  recognition  of  the  disease  as  a  hostile 
potency  is  certainly  where  ^ve  should  have  least  ex- 
pected it — in  the  record  of  a  physician,  and  that  in  the 
other  the  warring  elements  were  checked  by  ])ersoni- 
fying  words,  which  (with  every  deduction  for  Oriental 
forms  of  speech,  or  whatever  else  may  be  used  to  dilute 


522  ^I^S  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  IX. 

plain  terms)  it  docs  seem  somewhat  hazardous  to  ex- 
plain away  as  merely  picturesque  or  rhetorical.  Again, 
to  take  a  last  instance,  we  may  feel  that  in  the  touch- 
ing w^ords  at  the  close  of  Matt.  xxvi.  38  {<yp7)ryopelT6  fxer 
€/jlov)  some  desire,  on  the  part  of  the  Saviour  of  the 
world,  for  the  sympathy  in  the  dread  nour  of  His  agony 
of  those  He  loved,  is  actually  though  mysteriously  dis- 
closed. We  may  muse  hereon  in  adoring  wonder,  and 
feel,  perhaps  still  more  freshly,  the  blessed  comfort  that 
flows  from  such  words  as  Heb.  iv.  15,  but  we  forbear 
applying  any  such  statements  to  the  profound  questions 
connected  with  the  two  Natures,  and  refuse  to  see  in 
them  anything  more  than  silent  but  persuasive  hints 
against  the  varied  assumptions  and  speculations  of 
Apollinarian  error. 

To  gather  up  all, — if  in  each  of  the  three  cases  on 
which  we  have  dwelt  we  would  apply  Scripture  with 
profit,  let  us  learn,  Jirst,  to  use  all  types  not  Scripturally 
vouched  for,  as  illustrations,  and  not  as  supplying  argu- 
ments ;  secondly^  to  recognize  the  existence  of  second 
meanings,  but,  except  in  such  cases  as  inspiration  may 
have  revealed  them,  not  to  be  wise  above  what  is  writ- 
ten ;  and,  lastly^  to  let  our  deductions  ever  be  of  a 
devotional  rather  than  of  a  definitely  doctrinal  or  his- 
torical aspect, — to  accept  them  as  often  tending  much 
to  inward  comfort  and  edification,  but  as  rarely  adding 
much  to  our  knowledge  of  the  deeper  mysteries  of 
Scripture,  and  never  to  be  so  applied  w^ithout  our  in- 
curring the  heavy  charge  of  great  irreverence  and  pre- 
sumption. 

§5. 

15.  One  portion  of  the  subject  now  alone  remains 
to  be  noticed.  AYe  have  hitherto  been  concerned 
mainly  with  the  general  aspects  and  spirit  of  the 
Sacred  Yolume ;  but,  as  these  must  ever  depend  on 
just  recognitions  of  the  laws  of  the  letter,  we  will  make 
a  few  concluding  comments  on  the  language  of  Scrip- 
ture, and  on  those  grammatical  principles  by  which  it 
seems  to  be  ruled  and  conditioned. 


Essay  IX.]  SCRIPTUEE,  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATION.  528 

Onr  remarks,  liowovcr,  must  be  confined  simply  to 
the  language  of  the  Xcw  Testament.  It  is  for  others  to 
speak  of  the  language  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  to  state 
how  far  our  present  knowledge  of  the  letter  of  the  origi- 
nal is  capable  of  extension  or  improvement.  Some  of 
the  remarks  that  have  been  already  made,  and  perhaps 
some  even  of  the  comments  that  follow,  may  admit  of 
partial  applications  to  the  Old  Testament ;  but  it  is  clear 
that  the  circumstances  under  which  the  two  parts  of  the 
Sacred  Yolume  appear  before  us,  as  regards  language, 
are  very  different,  and  that  but  little  of  wdiat  is  said  in 
reference  to  the  details  of  the  one  can  be  pertinently 
applied  to  the  details  of  the  other.  Independently  of 
all  the  recognized  philological  differences,  we  have,  in 
the  case  of  the  Old  Testament,  a  collection  of  writings 
which  themselves  constitute  all  that  deserves  the  name 
of  the  literature  of  the  language ;  while  in  the  case  of 
the  JS^ew  we  have  a  small  number  of  histories  and  let- 
ters which  only  form  a  very  minute,  and  that  too  in 
some  respects  an  exceptional,  portion  of  the  general 
literature  of  the  language  in  which  they  are  written. 
Still  some  broad  principles  may  remain  which  may 
perhaps  equally  apply  to  the  interpretation  of  the  letter 
in  both  Testaments.  It  would  certainly  seem  that, 
much  as  has  of  late  been  done  for  the  study  of  the 
Hebrew  language,  especially  in  Germany,  there  is  still 
room  for  a  more  scientific  development  of  many  of  the 
laws  by  which  that  ancient  language  appears  to  be 
governed.  There  is  even  now,  as  a  reference  to  any  of 
the  more  recent  commentaries  on  the  books  of  the  Old 
Testament  will  clearly  show,  less  linguistic  precision, 
less  mastery  of  details,  less  recognition  of  those  bye- 
laws  which,  in  every  language,  but  especially  in  the 
Semitic,  so  much  regulate  special  interpretation,  less, 
in  a  word,  of  scholarship,  as  distinguished  from  learn- 
ing, than  we  might  have  expected  from  the  correspond- 
ing advances  in  the  Greek  language.  Xay,  even  in 
what  falls  more  especially  under  the  head  of  learning, 
study  of  the  ancient  Versions,  much  is  still  lacking. 
Our  modern  commentaries  on  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 


524  -^^^S  "^^  FAITH.  [Essay  IX. 

ment  arc  herein  scarcely,  if  at  all,  more  advanced  than 
the  current  commentaries  on  the  New  Testament,  though 
in  some  cases,  especially  in  that  of  the  Syriac,  and  per- 
haps also  of  parts  of  the  Arabic  Yersion,"^  more  real 
benefit,  from  tlie  affinities  of  language,  is  to  be  ex- 
pected from  their  use  in  the  Old' Testament  than  in 
the  'New. 

16.  But,  to  pass  to  that  with  which  we  are  more 
immediately  concerned, — the  language  of  the  .Kew 
Testament, — we  may  find  it  convenient  first  to  make 
a  few  comments  of  a  general  nature  relating  to  the  lan- 
guage as  viewed  in  connexion  with  earlier  or  contem- 
porary Greek,  and  then  in  the  second  place  to  append 
a  small  list  of  selected  comments  on  such  details  of 
syntax  as  may  seem  to  require  notice  or  illustration. 

With  regard  to  the  general  character  of  the  Greek 
of  the  New'Testament,  the  estimate  commonly  formed 
by  modern  writers  on  this  subject  appears  perfectly 
correct,  viz.,  that  it  is  neither  in  every  respect  classi- 
cally ])ure  on  the  one  hand,  nor  yet  simply  and  essen- 
tially Hebraistic  on  the  other,  but  that  it  has  for  its 
basis  that  "common"  or  "Hellenic  dialect"  which  the 
conquests  of  Alexander  and  those  who  succeeded  him 
spread  over  a  great  part  of  the  East,  and  which,  from 
involving  a  mixture  of  dialects,  and  especially  of  the 
Macedonian,  has  sometimes  been  designated  simply  by 
this  last-mentioned  name.  It  must  not,  however,  be 
forgotten  that  this  "common,"  "Hellenic,"  or  "  Mace- 
donian dialect,"  though  undoubtedly  the  foundation  of 
the  Greek  of  tlie  New  Testament,  received  at  least  three 
very  important  modifications  when  it  became  blessed 
by  being  the  vehicle  of  the  message  of  salvation  to  the 
world  at  large.  In  the  first  place,  the  writers  of  the 
New  Testament,  though  undoubtedly  possessing  a  very 
competent  knov-'ledge  of  the  Greek  language  as  used 
and  spoken  in  their  own  times,  must  have  often  thought 
in  their  native  Aramaic,  and  so  unconsciously  have  im- 

*  It  is  perhaps  right  to  observe  that  nearly  all  the  other  Versions  of  the 
Old  Testament,  except  of  course  the  Vulgate,  arc  known  to  be,  or  with  rea- 
son supposed  to  be,  derived  from  the  Septuagint.  This,  of  course,  greatly 
detracts  from  their  value  as  exegctical  aids  in  reading  the  original. 


Essay  IX.]  SCRIPTURE,   AND  ITS   INTERPRETATION.  525 

parted  that  Hebraistic  tinge  to  tlieir  language  wliicli  is 
midoubtedly  to  be  traced  in  it.  The  observation  is  per- 
fectly correct  that  the  pure  Hebraisms  of  the  Xew 
Testament  are  not  very  numerous,  and  that  they  are 
more  of  a  lexical  tlian  a  grammatical  character,"  still  it 
cannot  be  denied  that  semi-Hebraisms,  or  traces  of  this 
occasionally  thinking  in  their  own  language  while  they 
^vere  writing  in  another,  are  neither  so  few  nor  so  faint 
as  sometimes  has  been  asserted  by  winters  on  this  sub- 
ject. Xo  discriminating  reader  can  fail  to  observe  this, 
especially  in  the  not  uncommon  tendency  to  co- ordina- 
tion, wdiere  snbordination  would  have  seemed  more 
conformable  to  the  spirit  of  the  language  in  which  they 
were  waiting ;  in  the  striking  predominance  of  the  direct 
over  the  indirect  or  obliqne  form  wdien  the  words  or 
thoughts  of  anotlier  are  referred  to ;  in  the  partially  re- 
dundant uses  of  pronouns,  and  even  prepositions,  and 
tlie  corresponding  and  equally  characteristic  want  of 
freedom  in  the  nses  of  the  conjunction;  in  the  compar- 
atively rare  occurrence  of  the  optative  mood,  and  yet 
again  in  uses  of  the  infinitive  (especially  in  reference  to 
purpose)  even  more  varied  than  Ave  find  them  in  earlier 
ages  of  the  language.  All  this  cannot  fail  to  strike  the 
observant  reader,  and  to  remind  him  how  much  beyond 
the  recurrence  of  simple  and  definite  Hebraisms,  like 
irpocrcoTTov  Xafju/Sdvecv,  or  ^prelv  'ylrvxv^,  tlie  semi-Hebra- 
isms or  rather  the  Aramaic  tinge  of  the  Xew  Testament 
must  really  be  considered  to  extend. f 

Another  general  difterence  between  the  language  of 
the  Xew  Testament  and  the  language  of  the  ordinary 
Greek  writers  of  the  same  or  even  an  earlier  period,  is 
clearly  to  be  explained  by  tlie  iact  that  so  much  of  the 
Xew  Testament  is  marked,  in  respect  of  language,  by 
what  may  be  roughly  termed  ojY(1  characteristics.  The 
Gospels  had  only  assumed  the  form  in  which  we  find 

*  Soc  Winer,  '  Grammatik  dcs  Ncutcst.  Sprach.'  ?  .".,  p.  20  (ed.  6). 

t  Winer  very  properly  calls  attention  to  the  existence  of  two  classes  of 
Hebraisms  in  the  New  Testament:  pure  Hebraisms,  and  what  he  terms  "im- 
perfect" Hebraisms,  or  ex])ressions,  which,  tlioniih  not  without  some  paral- 
lelism ill  earlier  or  later  (jreek,  arc  probably  to  be  referred  simjily  to  the 
influence  of  the  mother  tongue.    See  •  Grammatik,'  §  3,  p.  20  seq. 


526  -^1^3  TO  FAITH.  [EssATlX 

them,  after  some  years,  at  least,  of  oral  delivery.  Prob- 
ably the  greater  part  of  the  Epistles,  and  certainly  by 
far  the  greater  pai't  of  those  whicli  came  from  St.  Paul, 
were  written  down  from  dictation.  Even  in  the  book 
(the  Acts)  which  more  nearly  approaches  formal  history 
than  any  of  the  others,  the  speeches  are  not  only  numer- 
ous, but  to  all  appearance  faithful  recitals  of  words 
actually  spoken.  The  oral  element  thus  pervades  the 
whole  Sacred  Volume,  and,  on  the  one  hand,  may 
justly  be  considered  as  contributing  in  a  very  great 
degree  to  that  combined  simplicity  and  force  which  is 
so  observable  in  the  narrative  portions,  and,  on  the 
other  hand,  is  equally  clearly  to  be  seen  and  felt  in  the 
longer  sentences,  suspended  structures,  and  relapses  to 
a  nominative  which  we  so  often  meet  with  in  the  epis- 
tolary portion,  especially  in  the  writings  of  St.  Paul. 
The  whole  subject  is  well  worthy  of  attention.  It  has 
often  been  alluded  to  by  writers  on  the  language  of  the 
New  Testament,  but  has  never  yet  received  that  con- 
sideration and  recognition  which  it  seems  most  fully  to 
deserve. 

A  third  difference  is  to  be  observed  in  the  nse  of 
words  and  terms,  in  what  may  be  called  a  specially 
Christian  sense.  Words  sufficiently  familiar  to  the 
general  reader  of  Greek,  e.  g.^  itIcttl^,  iricneveLVy  acorijpla, 
adp^,  K»  T.  \.,  reappear  in  the  Kew  Testament  in  per- 
fectly new  combinations,  and  are  found  to  be  invested 
with  meanings  completely  distinctive  and  peculiar. 
Many  of  these  may  be  traced  to  the  Old  Testament, 
while  some  others  may  have  been  applications  in  an- 
other language  of  expressions  not  nnknown  to  the  Eab- 
binical  waitings  of  tlie  day;  still,  in  a  general  and 
popular  way  of  speaking,  they  may  be  considered  to 
mark  a  specially  Christian  aspect  of  the  language  we 
are  considering,  and  one  which  is  not  always  sufficiently 
taken  into  account  in  comparisons  of  it  with  ordinary 
Greek.  Long  familiarity  with  these  terms  renders  iis 
less  sensitive  to  this  diiierence  than  we  are  to-  some 
others,  but  to  an  intelligent  reader  of  Greek,  in  whose 
hands  the  New  Testament  was  placed  for  the  lirst  lime. 


Essay  IX.]  SCEIPTURE,  A^'D  ITS  INTERPRETATION.  527 

this  perhaps  would  seem  the  most  striking  point  in 
which  its  language  ditfered,  not  onl_y  from  tliat  of  the 
classical  authors,  but  even  from  tliat  of  the  Hellenic 
"writers  who  lived  nearer  to  Cliristian  times. 

These  three  elements — a  Hebraistic  tone  of  thouglit, 
not  only  showing  itself  in  isolated  terms  but  in  the 
connexion  and  dependence  of  clauses,  the  oral  element, 
giving  its  character  to  whole  groups  of  sentences,  and 
the  Christian  element  to  words  and  expressions,  all 
combine  to  place  before  us  a  form  of  the  "  common 
dialect "  as  unique  as,  even  in  a  mere  literary  point  of 
view,  it  is  also  interesting  and  instructive.  But  though 
so  unique  it  is  still  neither  to  be  exemjDted  from  the 
application  of  the  ordinary  laws  of  the  Greek  language, 
nor  to  be  dealt  with  as  if  it  had  neither  certainty  nor 
accuracy.  This  last  is  one  of  the  convenient  assump- 
tions of  the  time.  Even  grammar  is  thus  made  to 
bend  to  prejudice.  What  seems  tolerably  certain  and 
agreed  upon  is  at  once  dispensed  with  whenever  the 
"verifying  faculty"  is  thought  to  demand  it.  The 
plausible  rule  of  interpreting  Scripture  like  any  other 
book  gives  place  at  once  to  protests  against  the  scho- 
lasticism of  philology,  warnings  against  the  danger  of 
making  words  mean  too  much,  and  hints  that  scholar- 
ship may  not  unlikely  lead  us  to  impress  a  false  system 
on  words  and  constructions.  Into  all  tlie  forms  of  this 
really  deceitful  dealing  with  written  words  we  will  not 
here  enter.  They  can  only  be  dealt  satisfactorily  Avitli 
in  detail,  and  disproved  by  a  just  consideration  of  indi- 
vidual passages.  We  may,  however,  dispose  of  the 
danger  supposed  to  come  from  overmuch  scholarshi]) 
by  these  two  brief  remarks  : — First,  that  no  one  is  to 
be  esteemed  really  a  good  scholar  in  reference  to  the 
New  Testament  unless  he  is  well  acquainted  with  the 
minutiae  of  Hellenic  as  well  as  of  Attic  Greek,  and 
knows  well  when  to  recognize  later  usage  {e,  g.  fiij  with 
participles,  tendency  to  double  compounds,  (Sec),  and 
when  {e.  (j.  in  tenses,  conditional  sentences,  A:c.)  to 
apply  with  some  rigour  the  rules  of  classical  Greek. 
Secondly,  let  this  undoubted  fact  never  be  forgotten, — 


528  ^^^S  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  IX. 

that  the  "  coninion  dialect,"  which  we  so  justly  recog- 
nize as  the  basis  of  the  language  of  the  JSTew  Testa- 
ment, was  really  itself  placed  on  the  corner-stone  of 
Attic  prose,  and  that  a  good  knowledge  of  Attic  Greek 
is  simply  indispensable.  All  sound  scholars  are  now 
alike  agreed  in  recognizing  two  contrary  principles  in 
Hellenic  Greek :  on  the  one  hand  a  tendency  to  assim- 
ilate provincialisms ;  on  the  other  hand  a  tendency  to 
recur  to  Attic  usage,  which  passes  at  last  often  into  a 
hypercritical  affectation.  Are  we  then  to  relax  our 
study  of  a  pure  phase  of  language  which  thus  implic- 
itly is  to  be  seen  and  recognized  in  the  writings  of  tlio 
New  Testament,  and  wdiich,  by  being  itself  so  capable 
of  precise  definition,  is  ever  such  a  useful  standard 
with  which  to  compare  supposed  deviations  or  corrup- 
tions ?  This  single  remark  may  be  appended  by  way 
of  conclusion, — that  if  the  Greek  of  the  I^ew  Testa- 
ment be  carefully  examined  with  reference  to  this 
standard  (Attic  Greek),  it  will  be  seen  clearly  enough, 
that  the  difference  is  very  far  from  being  so  great  as 
might  have  been  ex23ected,  and  that  it  is  really  more 
to  be  felt  in  wdiat  is  lacking  and  limited,  in  the  less 
free  use  of  the  particles  of  connexion,  and  the  less 
facile  combination  of  clauses,  than  in  what  is  definitely 
solecistic  and  erroneous.  A  few  instances  of  this  latter 
kind  of  usage  may  undoubtedly  be  found,  as  for  in- 
stance tW  with  a  present  indicative  (1  Cor.  iv.  6,  Gal. 
iv.  17^'),  but  they  are  very  rare,  and,  considering  the 
various  elements  that  enter  into  the  language  of  the 
New  Testament,  even  strikingly  exceptional. 

IT.  Let  us  close  this  i^ortion  of  the  subject,  and 
illustrate  in  some  measure  what  has  been  already  said, 
by  a  short  list  of  such  systematic  details  as  may  per- 
haps be  useful  in  their  collected  form  to  the  student  of 
the  Greek  Testament,  and  may  not  be  wholly  out  of 
place  even  in  a  general  essay  like  the  present.  We 
will  endeavour  to  avoid  all  technicalities  of  language 

*  The  attempt  of  Fritzcbo  and  others  to  explain  this  by  supposing  "va  an 
ndverb,  docs  not  seem  at  all  natural  or  plausible.  Sec  Winer,  '  (jlrammatik,' 
§  41,  p.  2o9. 


ES3AYIX.]  SCKIPTUEE,  AND  IT3  INTERPRETATION.  529 

or  arrange inent ;  but,  for  the  sake  of  ])erspiciiity,  will 
adhere  to  the  ordinary  heads  under  which  such  obser- 
vations are  usually  distributed. 

(1.)  The  article  claims  the  first  place,  and  may  be 
said  still  to  require  more  careful  study  than  it  has  ever 
yet  received,  es])ecially  in  regard  to  its  usage  in  those 
portions  of  the  ^"ew  Testament  which  are  supposed  to  be 
of  latest  date.  We  are  told,  indeed,  that  such  discus- 
sions have  "  already  gone  far  beyond  the  line  of  utility," 
but  we  shall  scarcely  be  moved  by  such  comments, 
when  a  reference  to  the  pages  almost  of  any  expositor 
shows  how  much  uncertainty  still  prevails  on  this  sub- 
ject, and  how  common  an  error  it  is  to  press  the  force 
of  the  article  when  it  is  only  present  in  consequence  of 
the  action  of  some  general  rule.  Thus,  for  example, 
what  the  grammarians  call  the  law  of  "  correlation,"  or, 
to  speak  more  simply,  the  general  rule  that  if  two  sub- 
stantives are  in  regimen,  either  both  will  have  the  ar- 
ticle, or  both  be  without  it,  is  constantly  and  sometimes 
even  absurdly  violated.  Words  are  often  passed  as 
peculiarly  definite,  which  only  assume  the  form  of 
definiteness  in  consequence  of  the  action  of  the  general 
rule ;  and,  again,  deductions  are  made  from  their  sup- 
posed indefiniteness  wdien  the  presence  of  the  defining 
article  w^ould  be  a  simple  solecism.  The  omission  of 
the  article,  however,  in  the  later  Epistles  is  perhaps 
the  point  wdiich  at  present  most  requires  consideration ; 
nay,  even  in  the  case  of  a  writer  where  we  should  not 
have  expected  it,  the  Evangelist  St.  Luke,  the  oldest 
manuscripts,  especially  as  supported  by  the  new  Codex 
Sinaiticus,  disclose  a  far  greater  amount  of  probable 
omissions  than  we  should  at  all  have  been  likely,  a 
priori^  to  expect.  Careful  consideration  of  these  will 
probably  lead  to  some  modification  of  the  existing  rules 
connected  with  the  use  of  the  article  in  the  Xew  Testa- 
ment. Meanwhile  to  group  hastily  together  what  we 
know,  it  may  be  remarked  : — {a)  That  the  words  which 
assume  the  privilege  of  proper  names  and  dispense 
with  the  article  where  it  might  have  been  expected, 
are  very  numerous  in  the  New  Testament.  Very  im- 
23 


530  ^'^'^^  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  IX. 

portant  examples  of  this  may  often  be  found  in  the  uses 
of  the  words  Tlvevjia  and  vofio^^  and  doctrinal  state- 
ments or  deductions  much  modified  by  a  recognition  of 
what  is  now,  in  the  case  of  both  these  words,  a  matter 
of  simple  demonstration,  ip)  That  the  article  is  often 
omitted  after  a  preposition,  but  aj^parently  subject  to 
this  sort  of  rough  limitation,  viz.,  that  when  it  is  the 
apparent  desire  of  the  writer  to  be  peculiarly  distinct 
and  definite  he  rarely  fails  to  insert  it.  Of  this,  1  Tim. 
ii.  15  may  perhaps  be  referred  to  as  a  pertinent  exam- 
ple. The  rule  seems  to  be  in  such  cases, — "  Press  the 
article  when  present,  but  do  not  press  the  absence  of  it 
when  it  happens  to  be  absent."  (c)  The  popularly 
known  omission  of  the  article  after  the  verb  substantive 
and  verbs  implying  names  or  designations,  is  not  always 
sufficiently  remembered  by  the  interpreter  of  the  New 
Testament,  {cl)  The  amount  and  extent  of  the  omissions 
of  the  article  where  the  substantive  practically  coa- 
lesces witli  the  clause  which  follows  {e.  g.  Col.  i.  8,  Tr]v 
vfjicov  dyaTrrjv  iv  TlvevfiarL^  or  Eph.  i.  15,  rrjv  KaO*  vfia^ 
TTLCTTtv  iv  TO)  KvpLw  'Irjaou)  have  not  yet,  perhaps,  been 
fully  recognized  or  agreed  upon.  Perhaps  some  rule 
similar  to  that  alluded  to  in  (b)  may  not  be  found  in 
the  sequel  to  be  much  exaggerated,  (e)  Lastly,  several 
examples  of  what  is  called  Granville  Sharp's  rule,  or 
the  inference  from  the  presence  of  the  article  only  be- 
fore the  first  of  two  substantives  connected  with  koll 
that  they  both  refer  to  the  same  person  or  class,  must 
be  deemed  very  doubtful.  The  rule  is  sound  in  prin- 
ciple, but,  in  the  case  of  proper  names  or  quasi-proper 
names,  cannot  safely  be  pressed. 

(2.)  "With  regard  to  substantives,  the  points  that  seem 
most  to  need  attention  are  the  different  connections  and 
constructions  of  the  genitive  and,  in  a  less  degree,  of 
the  dative  cases.  The  use  of  the  former,  especially 
when  imder  the  regimen  of  a  preceding  substantive,  is 
peculiarly  varied,  and  will  require  considerable  tact  on 
the  part  of  the  accurate  interpreter.  Without  descend- 
ing to  very  minute  details,  or  attempting  to  discuss  all 
tlie  nine  or  ten  divisions  into  which  the  various  forms 


Essay  IX.]  SCEIPTURE,  AND  ITS  INTERPrwETATION.  53  j 

of  the  genitive  may  be  separated,  we  may  direct  atten- 
tion to  the  following  selected  exemplifications  of  the 
uses  of  tliis  case  as  found  in  the  New  Testament : — (a) 
The  use  of  the  genitive  as  specifying  something  in  appo- 
sition to,  or  identical  with,  the  noun,  hj  which  it  is  gov- 
erned, e.  </.,  2  Cor.  v.  5,  rov  dppa^cjva  tov  Hvevfiaro';, 
Epli.  vi.  li,  TOV  OdipaKa  ti]<;  BtKaco(rvv7]<; ;  (h)  a  widely  ex- 
tended use  to  denote  the  ideas  of  origination  (Eom.  iv. 
13,  hiKaioavvrj  Trlareco^;),  and  not  unfrequently  of  definite 
agency  (2  Thess.  ii.  13,  dycaa-iib^;  UvevpLaro^) ;  {c)  a  still 
more  extended  use  in  which  very  varied  relations,  both 
of  time  (Jude  6,  Kpiai^;  /iieyd\r]<;  r}fiepa<;)  and  of  j^lace, 
whether  topographical  (Matt.  i.  11,  fieroLKea-ia  Ba^vkw- 
vo^,  ih.  ch.  X.  5,  6So9  i6vcov)  or  general  (Col.  i.  20,  al/xa 
TOV  (jTavpou),  are  all  simply  and  briefly  expressed  by 
this  flexible  case.  If  we  add  to  these  {d)  a  smaller 
class,  in  which  ideas,  so  to  speak,  of  ethical  substance 
or  contents  appear  to  predominate  (see  Eph.  i.  13,  tov 
\6yov  T?}9  aXrqOeia^  to  evayyiXcov  t?}?  (TCi3Tr}pia<^  v/mmv, 
where  both  ideas  appear  in  adjacent  clauses) ;  and  lastly 
(f),  the  not  uncommon  use  of  the  genitive  to  denote  the 
prevailing  character  or  quality  (Luke  xvi.  8,  olkovojulo^; 
T/}9  aSfc/cto.?), — a  nse  which  probably  owes  its  frequency 
to  the  part  which,  in  Aramaic,  the  dependent  noun 
plays  as  a  representative  of  the  adjective, — we  shall 
perhaps  have  enumerated  all  the  more  noticeable  forms 
in  which  the  dependent  genitive  appears  in  the  Xew 
Testament.  Attention  to  this  case,  especially  in  deeper 
and  doctrinal  passages,  will  often  be  found  to  yield 
very  important  practical  results,  and  to  suggest  topics 
for  application  which  popular  writers,  who  commonly 
treat  all  this  as  mere  scholastic  pedantry,  are  com- 
pletely unaware  of. 

The  nse  of  the  dative  is  much  varied,  and  may  be 
disposed  of  in  two  or  three  sentences.  If  the  essential 
idea  of  the  case  as  that  of  limitation  and  circumscrip- 
tion (the  wherert^  case,  just  as  the  genitive  is  thewhere- 
from  case,  and  the  accusative  tlie  wherez?^  case)  be 
properly  borne  in  mind,  it  is  not  probable  that  even  in 
the  less  direct  uses, — c.  g.,  in  reference  to  ethical  locality 


532  -^IDS  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  IX 

(1  Cor.  xiv.  20),  rule  and  measure  (Acts  xv.  1),  &c., 
any  real  difficulty  will  be  felt.  The  only  usage  which 
seems  to  require  any  notice  is  one  of  occasional  occur- 
rence, where  ideas  of  instrumentality  or  manner  seem  to 
merge  into  those  of  the  imaginary  place  where^  or  the 
general  circumstances  oicing  to  which^  the  action  is  sup- 
posed to  have  taken  place.  Thus  St.  Paul  writes,  in  Gal.  i. 
22,  that  he  was  ayvoovjjievo^  tq)  TrpoacoTro)  to  the  Churches 
of  Judea  ; — his  countenance  was  not  the  instrument,  but 
rather  the  imaginary  scene  of  the  display  of  the  dyvota. 
Again,  he  tells  his  converts  at  Rome  that  the  Jews 
(under  the  image  of  the  natural  branches)  rfj  aincrTLa 
i^eKXdadrjo-av  (Eom.  xi.  20 ;  comp.  ver.  30,  1  Cor.  viii. 
7)  by  which  he  would  seem  to  refer,  not  to  the  actual 
instrument  %  which,  but  to  the  state  of  heart  and  feel- 
ing owing  to  which  the  judicial  act  was  performed. 

(3.)  We  may  pass  onward  to  verhs.  Here,  again, 
we  can  only  make  a  few  general  comments,  as  anything 
like  even  a  mere  rudimentary  outline  of  the  more  strik- 
ing usages  would  far  exceed  our  present  limits.  We 
may  remark,  however,  firsts  that  the  usual  rules  of  cor- 
rect Greek  are  observed  very  persistently,  in  the  moods, 
tenses,  connection  of  dependent  clauses,  and  even  in 
the  refinements  of  the  conditional  sentence.  In  this 
latter  case,  however,  one  imj^ortant  element  will  com- 
monly be  found  lacking, — the  optative  mood.  It  occurs 
YQYj  rarely  in  such  sentences  (comp.,  however,  1  Pet.  iii. 
14,  17,  Acts  xxiv.  19),  and,  indeed,  but  seldom  in  the 
New  Testament  generally ;  its  rarity  of  occurrence  serv- 
ing to  remind  the  reader  that  he  is  now  within  the 
precints  of  what  Lobeck  somewhat  quaintly  terms 
''  i'atiscens  Grtecitas."  A  second  general  remark  may  be 
made  on  another  sign  of  grammatical  degeneracy,  the 
use  of  the  verb-substantive  with  participles,  to  mark 
with  some  distinctness,  ideas  of  continuance  or  contem- 
poraneity. This  we  find  in  nearly  all  the  writings  of 
the  New  Testament,  and,  perhaps,  more  frequently 
than  elsewhere,  in  the  writings  of  an  author  who  we 
might  have  thought  would  have  been  least  likely  to 
have  adopted  it,  the  well-educated  and  practised  St. 


KSSAYIX.]  SCEIPTUEE,  AND  ITS  INTEEPEETATION.  533 

Luke.  The  cases,  however,  in  which  it  occurs  do  not 
appear  at  all  of  a  contused  or  promiscuous  nature  ;  but, 
as  we  have  above  suggested,  whenever  the  Sacred 
AYriter  desired  to  be  particularly  definite  in  reference 
to  time  and  its  duration.  A  third  general  remark  in 
reference  to  verbs  (capable  also  of  being  extended  to 
other  parts  of  speech)  is  this, — that  compound  forms 
cannot  always  be  safely  pressed.  There  appears  to 
have  been  a  very  marked  tendency  in  later  Greek  to 
an  increase  in  composition  without  in  every  case  a  cor- 
responding increase  of  meaning,  and  from  this  the  New 
Testament  is  not  exempt.  Caution,  however,  must  be 
shown  in  applying  this  remark,  as  our  knowledge  of 
the  exact  meaning  of  compound  verbs  in  the  JSTew 
Testament  is  still  very  limited.  It  is,  indeed,  much  to 
be  regretted  that  the  German  grammarian  Winer 
never  completed  his  treatise  on  this  subject.  The  four 
or  five  parts  of  it  that  have  been  published  are  excel- 
lent specimens  of  a  careful  and  scholarly  analysis  of  a 
subject  that  requires  much  reading,  and  not  a  little 
tact  and  penetration. 

If  w^e  allow  ourselves  to  devote  a  few  sentences  to 
matters  of  detail,  we  may  profitably  direct  attention  to 
four  points  : — (a)  an  occasional  use  of  the  middle  voice 
in  the  New  Testament  (Col.  i.  G,  KapTrocpopov/jLevop,  and 
1  Tim.  i.  16,  ivBel^rjTai,  may  perliaps  be  cited  as  exam- 
ples) in  which  all  tinge  of  a  refiexive  sense  appears  lost, 
and  in  which  we  seem  to  recognize  the  presence  of  that 
sort  of  "intensive"  force  which  the  best  and  latest 
grammarians'^'  have  assigned  to  this  yet  imperfectly- 
understood  voice  ;  {h)  the  use  of  the  present  tense,  not, 
as  we  are  too  often  told,  "  for  the  future,"  but  with  its 
usual  proper  force  to  mark  what  is  abiding,  fixed,  and 
predetermined,  especially  in  reference  to  the  course  of 
things  as  appointed  by  God  (Col.  iii.  0  ;  Matt.  xvii.  11 ; 
xxvi.  2,  al.) ;  {c)  the  somewhat  expansive  use  of  the 
future  in  the  New  Testament,  and  its  partial  assimila- 
tion of  various  shades  of  meaning  of  an  imperative 

*  See  DonaWson,  'Greek  Grammar/  §  132.  2.  lb;  Kruger, ' Sprachlelire,' 
§  52.  8. 


534  ^II^S  TO  FAITH.  [Essay  I-S. 

character,  especiallj^  -when  in  connexion  with  a  nega- 
tive (comp.  Matt.  vi.  5 ;  Acts  xiii.  10 ;  Matt.  v.  21 ; 
Rom.  vii.  7 ;  xiii.  9)  ;  lastly,  {d)  the  uses  of  present  and 
aoristic  participles  with  a  finite  verb  (especially  in  St. 
Luke  and  St.  Paul)  to  mark  the  ideas  of  time,  cause, 
manner,  and  concession  (comp.  Luke  iv.  35 ;  ix.  16  ; 
Col.  1.  3  seq.,  al.).  These  uses,  though  not  exhibiting 
quite  the  same  amount  of  flexibility  as  in  earlier  Greek, 
are  still  sufficiently  yaried  to  call  for  a  far  greater 
amount  of  attention  from  the  interpreter  than  they  have 
yet  received. 

(4.)  "We  have  now  remaining  only  two  groups  of 
words  on  which  observation  seems  necessary,  the  j9t^r^!^- 
cles  and  the  pr expositions.  In  regard  to  their  uses  we 
may  notice  a  very  clear  and  instructive  difference, 
serving  to  remind  us  how  sensibly  the  influence  of  the 
Aramaic  element  makes  itself  felt,  both  positively  and 
negatively,  in  some  parts  of  the  syntax  of  the  ]N"ew 
Testament.  In  the  jyrejpositions^  for  instance,  we  ob- 
serve a  redundancy  as  w^ell  as  variety  of  use,  which,  if 
we  did  not  call  to  mind  the  characteristics  of  the  mother- 
tongue  of  the  writers,  might  seem  particularly  strange 
and  perjDlexing.  This  desire  to  imitate  the  expressive- 
ness (in  this  respect)  of  the  Aramaic,  combined,  prob- 
ably, with  a  certain  loss  of  sensitiveness  to  the  full 
force  of  cases,  may  account  for  the  appearance  of  the 
prepositions  airo  and  eic  with  verbs  of  "giving"  (Luke 
xxiv.  42),  "receiving"  (Mark  xii.  2),  and  even  of 
"  eating  and  drinking"  (Matt.  xv.  27 ;  John  iv.  14), 
where,  to  say  the  very  least,  they  would  be  excessively 
unusual  in  classical  Greek.  The  same  may  be  said  of 
the  union  of  et?  and  Trpo?  with  a  large  class  of  verbs 
where  a  dative  would  have  seemed  much  more  conso- 
nant with  the  genius  of  the  language.  The  variety 
again  of  the  usage  of  individual  prepositions  is  peculiar- 
ly striking,  and  still  more  so  the  studied  accumulations 
of  them  in  a  single  sentence,  especially  in  St.  Paul's 
Epistles  (Rom.  xi.  3G  ;  Col.  i.  16,  al).  These  latter, 
though  sometimes  perhaps  called  forth  and  suggested 
by  doctrinal  distinctions  (Eph.  iv.  6),  seem  es])ecially 


Essay  IX.]  SCRirXUKE,  AND   ITS  INTElirKETATION.  535 

to  indicate  an  ease  and  freedom  that  would  liave  been 
looked  for  in  vain  in  the  ordinary  Greek  of  the  time. 
Equally  well  marked  is  the  general  correctness  with 
which  these  varied  usages  are  distinguished.  If  we 
except  the  tendency  to  over-use,  which  Ave  have  already 
observed,  and  a  few  combinations  (e.  g.  of  ek  with  some 
verbs  of  rest,  eV  with  some  verbs  of  motion,  and  the 
extended  use  of  the  latter  preposition  to  forms  and  ex- 
pressions where  vtto  or  Sea  might  have  seemed  more 
usual)  which,  though  not  without  parallelism  in  earlier 
Greek,  do  certainly  seem  to  reflect  some  tinges  of  incip- 
ient  degeneracy,''^'  or  some  reminiscences  of  the  mother- 
tongue,  there  is  really  not  only  no  prevailing  incorrect- 
ness whatever  in  the  use  of  the  preposition  in  the  New 
Testament,  but  very  frequentl^^  a  sharpness  and  pre- 
cision (coinp.  Rom.  xiii.  1)  that  reminds  the  student  of 
the  best  days  of  the  language.  When,  then,  a  recent 
writer  on  the  interpretation  of  Scripture  urges  that  in 
Gal.  iv.  13,  Bia  with  the  accusative  is  to  be  conceived 
as  used  for  or  equivalent  in  meaning  to  oca  with  the 
genitive,  he  not  only  shows  himself  a  lax  interpreter  of 
the  passage  in  question,  but  also  shows  a  deiicient 
knowledge  of  a  general  fact,  —  the  accuracy  of  prepo- 
sitional usage  in  the  New  Testament,  which  ought  to 
have  made  such  an  assumption  seem  d  jy^'iori  in  a  very 
high  degree  improbable. 

(5.)  In  strong  contrast  to  this  usage  of  ])repositions 
stands  that  of  the  Greek  J';>ar^^cZ6'5.  With  the  excejition 
of  Kaly  ovv,  Se,  'yap,  and  perha])S  also  ct)9  and  aXXa,  in 
the  uses  of  which  there  is  uot  only  variety  but  some- 
times well  marked  idiomatic  force  and  character,  there 
are  not  many  other  particles  in  the  New  Testament 
which  are  used  with  complete  ease  and  freedom.  There 
is  a  certain  degree  of  monotony,  a  deficient  amount  of 
combination,  and  a  Avant  of  flexibility  in  the  use  of  the 
particles  of  the  New  Testament  which  stand  in  marked 

*  Xo  trace  whatcrcr  of  that  utter  insensibility  to  the  fundamental  meaning 
of  cases  which  led  the  Byzantine  writers  to  confound,  for  example,  /xero  with  a 
gen.  and  ^l(ra  with  an  accus.,  or  to  ioin  airh  with  ai\  accus.  or  dat.,  (rvv  with 
a  gen.,  or  koto  with  a  dative,  is  to  be  found  anywhere  in  the  New  Testament 


536  ^II^S  TO  FAITH.  [EssATlX 

antithesis  to  the  ease  and  even  redundancy  which  are 
to  be  observed  in  the  use  of  the  prepositions.  Yet,  as 
it  was  in  the  case  of  the  latter,  so  is  it  with  the  particles  ; 
there  is  a  prevailing  accuracy  in  their  usage,  and  a  very 
general  conformity  to  the  laws  of  the  language  in  its 
earlier  and  better  state.  There  are  some  exceptional  as- 
pects, as  for  instance,  the  use  of  /x?)  with  participles 
when  there  is  no  tinge  of  a  subjective  negation  intended 
(the  rule  indeed  is,  "  Press  ov  when  connected  with  a  par- 
ticij)le,  but  not  (jltj  "),  the  weakened  force  of  «/a,  and  its 
occasional  use  to  designate  something  lying,  as  it  were, 
midway  between  purpose  and  result,  the  use  of  6tl  to 
introduce  another's  words  in  their  direct  form,  combi- 
nations like  Kadco^  and  juxta-positions  like  ap*  ovv, — 
such  there  are,  but  all  such  childish  statements  as  the 
use  of  one  particle  for  another,  and  so  forth,  are  to  be 
dismissed,  as  they  have  long  been  dismissed  by  all 
better  scholars,  as  very  unprofitable  delusions.  It  is, 
liowever,  painful  to  observe  how,  in  some  quarters,  such 
prejudices  still  hold  tlieir  ground,  and  how  even  those 
who  affect  to  lay  down  well-considered  rules  on  Scripture 
interpretation,  tell  us  that  "it  is  an  error  to  interpret 
every  particle  in  the  iN^'ew  Testament  as  if  it  were  a 
link  in  the  argument  wdien  it  is  often  a  mere  excrescence 
of  style."  Such  comments  on  supposed  error  are  really 
themselves  veri/  erroneous ;  and  the  pages  of  any  one 
of  the  better  expositors  of  the  day,  who  has  attended  to 
the  sequence  of  thought  in  his  author,  would  not  only 
show  them  to  be  so,  but  would  also  make  us  feel  very 
sensibly  how  completely  subversive  they  are  of  all 
principles  of  fiiithful  and  consistent  interpretation.  The 
German  commentaries  of  De  Wette  and  Meyer  are 
very  good  standing  protests  against  such  hasty  and  ill- 
considered  coinments.  These  writers,  though  in  no  way 
pledged  to  orthodoxy  in  matters  of  doctrine,  have  had 
far  too  great  experience  in  the  language  of  the  ISTew 
Testament  to  be  heterodox  in  point  of  grammar.  They 
never  hesitate  to  bestow  the  greatest  possible  attention 
on  all  minutiae,  and  exhibit  in  a  very  satisfactory  way 
what  striking  results  arc  to  be  obtained  from  a  careful 


Essay  IX.]  SCKirTUKE,   A^'D  ITS   INTERPRETATION.  53^ 

estimate  of  coiinectiiif^  particles,  and  liow  very  near  an 
approach  can  be  made  to  the  mind  of  the  inspired  writer 
by  this  mode  of  patient  and  philosophical  investigation. 

IS.  This  last  portion  of  our  subject  must  now  be 
brought  to  its  close.  We  have  left  very  many  points 
untouched,  on  which  comment  might  seem  in  some 
measure  desirable,  but  our  article  has  already  exceeded 
its  prescribed  limits,  and  it  now  becomes  necessary  to 
transgress  no  further  on  the  patience  of  our  readers. 
Yet  it  seems  impossible  to  part  from  those  who  have 
traversed  with  us  the  wide  domain  which  belongs  to 
such  subjects  as  those  we  have  considered,  without  a 
few  words  of  valediction,  and  a  few  expressions  of  min- 
gled anxiety  and  ho])e. 

Those  against  whom  our  observations  have  been  di- 
rected will  probably  not  be  affected  by  anything  that 
we  have  urged.  The  tone  of  self-confidence  which 
marks  their  writings;  the  unfairness,  or,  to  use  the  mild- 
est term,  tlie  slipperiness  that  pervades  their  arguments ; 
the- really  cruel  and  thoughtless  way  in  which  they 
have  allowed  themselves  to  scatter  doubt  and  uneasi- 
ness ;  their  utter  carelessness  for  the  feeble,  and  tlie 
unstable,  and  the  many  who,  with  all  their  frailties 
and  shortcomings,  still  deserve  the  name  of  "  babes  in 
Christ," — all  these  many  painful  characteristics  make 
us  feel  that  as  far  as  they  are  concerned  we  have  writ- 
ten and  have  spoken  in  vain.  There  are  others,  how^- 
cver,  with  whom  it  may  not  be  so.  There  are  kindly 
eyes  that  may  have  fallen  on  these  pages,  which,  though 
not  seeing  wholly  as  we  see,  may  yet  have  been  en- 
couraged to  gaze  longer  and  more  earnestly,  and  to 
wait  gently  and  patiently  for  a  glimpse  of  the  fair  land- 
scape that  lies  beyond  what  now  may  seem  to  them 
only  a  cloud-land  of  eddying  vapour  and  wandering 
storm.  God  in  His  everlasting  mercy,  for  our  dear 
Lord's  sake,  grant  that  it  may  be  so  !  God  grant  that 
such  may  see  and  feel  that  these  are  no  cunningly  de- 
vised fables,  no  mere  arguments  put  forward  for  love 
of  controversy,  no  mere  assumption  of  orthodox  atti- 
tudes for  the  soke  of  self-interest  (untrue  and  ignoble 
23* 


538  ^II^S    TO    FAITH.  [Essay  IX. 

taunt  of  embittered  opponents!),  but  a  statement  of 
earnest  and  serious  convictions,  wbicli  deepen  -svitb 
deepening  reflection,  to  wbich  every  fleeting  day  bears 
its  tribute  of  increasing  assurance,  wbicli  every  prayer 
quickens,  every  blessing  stimulates,  every  trial  contirms. 
May  they  be  moved  to  judge  us  thus  kindly  and  fairly  ; 
and  may  our  poor  words  be  permitted  in  return  to  im- 
part some  comfort  in  anxieties,  and  to  answer  some  of 
those  doubts  with  which  honest  and  good  hearts  are  often 
permitted  to  be  tried. 

Lastly,  may  the  great  Father  of  love  and  mercy 
draw  all  who  love  His  ever  blessed  Son,  and  who  see 
in  Him  the  propitiation  for  the  sins  of  a  whole  guilty 
world,  still  nearer  together.  It  may  be,  when  all  was 
well,  we  dealt  hardly  with  each  other,  that  we  thought 
unkindly  and  spoke  with  bitterness.  It  may  be  even  that 
we  have  acted  in  the  same  spirit,  that  we  have  helped 
to  break  up  the  household  of  faith  into  hostile  camps, 
that  we  have  smitten  friends  and  brethren,  and  led  those 
who  would  not  use  our  shibboleths  to  the  vale  of  slaugli- 
ter  and  spared  them  not.  But  now  the  foe  is  on  the 
frontier.  If  love  is  still  cold,  yet  at  least  let  danger 
reunite.  Let  us  yield  to  instincts,  if  we  care  not  yet 
for  principles.  Let  us  do  only  this,  and  it  may  be  that 
even  thus  we  may  be  allowed  to  see  and  feel  that  all 
was  so  ordered  by  a  loving  Father, — that  danger  was 
to  bring  about  reunion,  and  reunion  to  rekindle  love. 
And  then  at  last,  with  linked  hands  and  united  hearts, 
may  we  again  join  in  praising  and  blessing  our  common 
Lord,  evermore  adoring  Him  who  round  our  weaiaiess 
and  divisions  winds  the  encircling  bond  of  His  strength 
and  love,  ''round  our  incompleteness  His  complete- 
ness, round  our  restlessness  Ilis  rest." 


THE  END. 


D  APPLETON  <£■  00:8  PUBLICATIONS. 

RELBGBOUS   WORKS 

PUBLISHED    BY 

D.   APPLETON   &   COMPANY, 

90,  92  &  94  Grand  Street  New  York. 


Tlie  Good  Rexyort ;  3Iorning and  Evening  TjCSSoha 
for  Lent.  By  Alice  B.  IIavex.  1  vol.,  12mo,  318  pa;^'C8, 
Cloth,  $1.50. 

Thoughts  on  Personal  MeUglon:  Being  a  Treatise  on 
the  Christian  life  in  its  two  chief  elements — Devotion  and  Prac- 
tice. With  two  new  chapters  not  in  previous  editions.  By 
Edward  Meykick  Gouldurn,  D.  D.  Fourth  American  Edition, 
enlarged.  With  a  Prefatory  Xotc  by  George  II.  IIocgiiton, 
D.  D.,  Rector  of  the  Church  of  the  Transfiguration  in  the  City  of 
New  York.     1  vol.,  12mo.     Cloth,  $1.00. 

Office  of  the  Holy  Communion  in  the  Boole  of 
Common  Prayer*  A  Series  of  Lectures  delivered  in  tlw? 
Church  of  St.  John  the  Evangelist.  By  Edward  Meyrick 
GouLBURX,  D.  D.  Adapted  by  the  autlior  for  the  Episcopal  Sci^ 
vice  in  the  United  States.     1  vol.,  12mo.     Cloth,  $1.00. 

Sermons  Preached  on  Various  Occasions  during 
the  Last  Twenty  Years,  By  Edward  Meyrick  Goul 
DURN,  D.  D.     1  vol.,  12mo.     Cloth,  $1.00. 

Tfie  Idle  Word:  Short,  Keligious  Essays  on  the  Gift  of  Speech 
and  it.s  Employment  in  Conversation.  By  Edward  Meyrioj 
GocLBURV,  D.  D.     1  vol.,  12mo.     Cloth,  $1.00. 

An  Introduction  to  the  Uevofional  Study  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures,  By  Edward  Meyrick  GouLnuRX,  I).  D. 
First  American  from  the  Seventh  London  Edition.  1  vol., 
12mo.     Cloth,  $1.00. 

Ej  Ihar  of  the  aDove  sont  freo  by  Mail  on  receiDt  of  the  price 


v.  Appleton  d:  Company^s  Fublicationa. 

18    CHRISTIAN    CENTURIES. 

BY 

THE    REV.    JAMES    WHITE, 

AUTHOR   CF  A   HISTORY   OF   FRANCE. 

1  Vol.  12mo.    Cloth.    538  pages 


•  •♦ 


CONTENTS. 

1.  Cent.— The  Bad  Emperors.— II.  The  Good  Emperors.— III.  Anai- 
cLy  and  Confusion.— Growth  of  tlie  Christian  Church.— IV.  The  Kemovtil 
to  Constantinople.— Establishment  of  Christianity.— Apostasy  of  Julian.— 
Settlement  of  the  Goths.— V.  End  of  the  Eoman  Empire.— Formation  oi 
Modern  States.— Growth  of  Ecclesiastical  Authority.— VI.  Belisarius  and 
Narses  in  Italy— Settlement  of  the  Lombards.— Laws  of  Justinian.— Birth 
of  Mohammed.— VII.  Power  of  Kome  supported  by  the  Monks.— Con- 
quests of  the  Mohammedans.— VIII.  Temporal  Power  of  the  Popes.— The 
Empire  of  Charlemagne.— IX.— Dismemberment  of  Charlemagne's  Em- 
pire.—Danish  Invasion  of  England.— Weakness  of  France.— Rcign  of 
Alfred.— X.  Darkness  and  Despair.— XI.  The  Commencement  of  Improve- 
ment.—Gregory  the  Seventh.— First  Crusade.— XII.  Elevation  of  Learn- 
ino-.- Power  of  the  Church.— Thomas  a  Beeket.— XIII.  First  Crusado 
a^^ainst  Heretics.— The  Albigenses.— Magna  Charta.— Edward  I.— XIV. 
Abolition  of  iho  Order  of  Templars.— Pvise  of  Modern  Literature.— Schism 
of  the  Church.— XV.  Decline  of  Feudalism.- Agincourt.— Joan  of  Arc.— 
The  Printing  Press.— Discovery  of  America.— XVI.  The  Reformation.— 
The  Jesuits.- Policy  of  Elizabeth.— XVII.  English  Ecbellion  and  Kevolu- 
tion.— Despotism  of  Louis  the  Fourteenth.- XVIII.  India.— America.— 
France. — Index. 


OPINIONS  OF  THE  PRESS. 

Mr.  White  possesses  in  a  high  degree  the  power  of  epitomizing— that 
taculty  which  enables  him  todistil  the  essence  from  a  mass  of  facts,  and  to 
condense  it  in  description ;'  a  battle,  siege,  or  other  remM-kable  event, 
which,  without  his  skill,  might  occupy  a  chapter,  is  compressed  within 
the  compass  of  a  pnge  or  two,  and  this  without  the  sacrifice  of  any  feature 
Chscntial  or  significant. — Century. 

Mr.  White  has  been  very  happy  in  touching  npon  the  salient  points  in 
the  history  of  each  century  'in  the  Christian  era,  and  yet  has  avoided  mak- 
ing his  work  a  mere  bald  analysis  or  chronological  table.— Prov.  Joijrnal. 

In  no  single  volume  of  English  literature  can  so  satisfying  and  clear  an 
idea  cf  the  historical  character  of  these  eighteen  centuries  be  obtained.— 
Home  Journal. 

In  this  volume  we  have  the  best  epitome  of  Christian  IIistohy  bx- 
TAMT.  This  is  high  praise,  but  at  the  same  time  just.  The  author's  peoa- 
luvr  success  is  in  making  the  great  points  and  facts  of  history  stand  out  iu 
tAxaxp  relief.  His  style  may  be  said  to  be  stereoscopic,  and  tno  eft'cct  w  0X« 
(V.nduigly  impressive. — Providenjk  Pbeb>^ 


Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Libraries 


1    1012   01210   5716 


